*New Story* Do autonomous trucks dream of CW McCall?
I've got some serial stories I'd like to tell about living with (and in) technology and the industry. Do autonomous trucks dream of CW McCall? Falstaff’s story “For a bright shining moment, we added a lot of shareholder value”. Falstaff had a comic with that caption in his double sized cubicle, the kind reserved for senior engineers. For a while he thought it showed that he didn’t fully buy into the corporate line, but that he’d still do as he was told as long as he had a shot at the big payout. RSUs, the big acquisition. The end of year bonus. That was the deal in the before time, when things mostly worked out for most people it seemed. Falstaff knew he wasn’t the smartest, but he didn’t complain, didn’t pick fights and lived pretty well. His bad habits didn’t impact his work life and he still might hit it big enough to quit and try something else. To have options. Then everything happened at once. The fires. The diseases. The chaos. Nobody knew who was in charge for a year or so. Things came back. A few years passed and the wealthy parts of the coastal cities looked shiny again. Most people called it normal. To the casual eye, it was. You could still get sushi delivered to the office late at night, ski in the Rockies if you could take the time off. Things were pretty good if you stayed where you belonged and kept your metrics up. Things fell off as you went East or to the not-so-quaint rural areas that couldn’t swing a music festival or good photo opportunities for social media. Go far enough and you found the places where the Feds just walked away. Not our problem any more. That’s how Falstaff saw the world and his place in it. He had’nt had much sleep. Drugs, risky behavior and the self-loathing kept him occupied, making his morning commute that much less pleasant. He stopped staring at the RVs and tents parked on the land next to the on-ramp as he got on the 101. He jabbed the infotainment system to find some noise to sooth or at least distract him. “Today, the Department of Energy announced that repairs have been completed ahead of schedule for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Radiation levels are now below acceptable levels for the first time in three years” Click. “We’ve got an autonomous truck accident with a car by Exit 6 on the 280 Eastbound, so expect delays while CHP and a support team from Freightliner gets that cleaned up” Click. It didn’t work. He still felt adrift and unhappy in the morning commute, so he silenced the radio and drove to the office. The office was uneventful. Park, security checkpoint, a long walk to his building, a coffee on the way to his cubicle. He pulled the privacy screen closed behind him and sat down. A quick scan of his eyes and there was his project- a payment processing application that would cut out another payment application for a small percentage of a massive stream of money. He looked over last night’s chatter, split the tasks into ‘do the work’ and ‘show that I’m adding value’ categories. The fear and sadness caught up with him. He wasn’t ever going to get out. If he ran as fast as he could, he’d stay exactly where he was until his rent outpaced his income. His stock options would vest just fast enough to keep him going, but he’d never get out. The morning dragged. Tweak this, report this to someone else. The bureaucratic minutiae and make-work washed over him until lunch. He looked forward to lunch with Tran, hoping that might get him out of his funk. Tran wasn’t so much a friend as one of the few people who admitted how screwed up everything was, so there wasn’t any danger of speaking the obvious and getting a negative reputation. Tran was out today, so Falstaff ate leftovers and instant noodles in his cubicle. His phone buzzed. There was a message on MomTalk, a chat for wealthy mothers to discuss brunch, day drinking and their children. An engineer friend of Falstaff’s set it up as a joke to lampoon the women she couldn’t stand and her friends played along, adopting over the top personae and complaining about nonexistent spouses and domestic staff. After things came back, it was a way to talk freely, if in code. Heather: Hey. I’m in deep trouble. The Nanny’s unhappy and I need someone to pick up the kids. Falstaff sighed. Tran must need something. Sheila: Missed you for lunch. Not feeling well? Heather: Serious. My kid is stuck under my desk and I need him to come home. UNDERSTAND? NOW! Sheila:kk. He got up, took his brown cardboard biodegradable instant noodle container and walked a few rows over to Tran’s cubicle. Where Falstaff’s cube was disorganized and well worn, Tran’s was sparse with better furniture. Falstaff felt under the desk and noticed a decal with one end loose. A quick pull and the label peeled off into his hand, along with a small flash memory card, the size of a fingernail. He stood up and quickly looked up and down the aisle between the cubicles. Nobody noticed. Nobody really paid much attention to him on a good day unless they needed something from him anyway. Back in his own cubicle, he went back to the chat: Sheila: How urgent is this? Chip can have dinner with us or we can drop him off on the way to fencing class. Heather:NO TIME. FAMILY’S HERE AND THINGS ARE TENSE. Heather:RUN. GET OUT NOW. Heather:REALLY. Falstaff was concerned. Tran didn’t make jokes. Laughing at Falstaff’s attempts at humor was enough. He had figured that Tran’s talk of ‘having gangsters in his family’ was an attempt to seem dangerous despite being a cubicle denizen, the way middle aged men bought loud motorcycles that they never rode. He folded the decal over the card, pressed the sides together and dropped it in the instant noodle cup, then pushed it down with the corn-plastic chopsticks. The background chatter got quiet and multiple employees raised their heads prairie-dog like. Several members of the company security detail were looking through Tran’s cubicle. Geoff, the brush-cut ex-cop security guard for this building was standing in the aisle attempting to look like he mattered to the operation as the more polished and definitely better paid detail carefully boxed the contents of Tran’s cubicle. Falstaff picked up his phone and noodle container and started walking towards an exit away from the commotion. Geoff noticed and walked briskly after him. As Falstaff walked out of the building, Geoff called out his real name, then jogged behind him, puffing his half a size too small corporate logo’d golf shirt. Ironed golf shirt. Falstaff heard Geoff behind him, but decided to ignore him. Geoff was a blue-badged contractor, safely ignored. Normally. Geoff ran in front of him and blocked his path to the parking garage. “You wouldn’t happen to know where Tran is, would you? I’ve seen you with him ” Falstaff tapped on his white badge. “You’re not my real dad. You can’t tell me what to do” Falstaff squeezed past him into the parking garage’s doorway. Geoff glared at him while Falstaff got in his car and put the noodle carton in the fancy retracting cupholder. He started his car and drove off as calmly as he could manage. Despite his attempt at seeming indifferent, his mind was racing. He attempted to make good time without getting attention. Luckily, silver Porsches were a cliché and therefore almost invisible in the Valley. Twenty minutes later, he was in his mid-grade two bedroom apartment overlooking the parking lot. His cat, Hank, greeted him with a raised head and half open eyes. Falstaff gave the cat some perfunctory petting, while trying to sequence the next few tasks. He went to the refrigerator in the kitchen, carrying the ramen cup in one hand. He selected a can of energy drink and thought for a second. His smartwatch and phone went in the freezer. Fishing the wrapped memory card out of the cup, he picked up the can and walked to his couch, where a bestickered high end laptop rested. Debating between speed and security, he turned off networking on his laptop, then inserted the card into the laptop gingerly, mounting it read-only in case Tran left something aggressive on the card. Huh. A couple really large encrypted files. And seven smaller files with long filenames of seemingly random numbers and letters. He ejected the card and gingerly placed it on the arm of the couch. The file names were bitcoin addressses. A lookup showed a total value of almost $600 million in value there. The files themselves were encrypted. Falstaff stared at the wall for a minute or two, then realized that Tran had decided to quit and take an unauthorized retirement bonus from their shared employer. Enough money to kill for. Who knew about this, and more importantly, who knew Falstaff had the key? Tran did. Perhaps his gangster friends knew. He pulled his phone out of the freezer. A few project related emails and three MomTalk direct messages. Heather:??? Heather:Where y’at? Heather:I have investors. They’re quite insistent. They’re on their way to you. It was time to go. Now. Falstaff put the laptop down and ran to his bedroom. He pawed through a closet and pulled out the giant duffel he used to carry two week’s laundry from his grad student apartment to the cheaper off-campus laundromat. He quickly shoved a variety of clothes, some scuffed hiking boots and some corporate branded technical outdoors gear into it. Behind a shelf, he found a long, antiquated Russian bolt-action rifle and a few paper-wrapped boxes of bullets. It wasn’t the firearm someone on the run would want, but it’s what he had. It went into the duffle bag, which he dragged into the living room. Hank jumped down and inspected the bag. “Hank, I’ll hook you up in a second” A quick scour of the kitchen and Falstaff had two thick trashbags and a box of water jugs with his current employer’s old logo on them, which he emptied into the sink and turned on the faucet. As the sink filled, he filled the trashbags with whatever looked useful- tools, hobby electronics, his laptop and cat food. He pulled out a fat stack of cash from the bottom of his drug stash box. He contemplated forced sobriety, then carefully closed the box and put it in the bag, along with the cash. Don’t change everything at once, he thought. Now isn’t the time to risk sobriety. Falstaff rummaged around in the hall closet and dug out a bright pink cat carrier and stuffed Hank into it, then turned to the overflowing sink in his kitchen. He opened and filled the bottles in what he hoped was an efficient use of time, then pushed them back into the box. His phone buzzed again. He contemplated throwing it back in the freezer, then thought better of it, shoving it and the watch back in his pocket. Hank started meowing. “We’re not going to the vet today, dude. Shut it for now” Falstaff looked out his window. Typical traffic. Typical parking lot. A few charging stations, a fence and tents on the other side. He opened the window and threw the bags into the bushes below. He picked up Hank’s carrier, his laptop and looked at the box of water bottles. Wait. Stop. Think. Breathe. Tran’s card. A minute of searching found where he left it on the couch. He stuck that in his pocket, then ran out of his apartment. He considered the elevator, then decided on the stairs as they were closer to the bags and his car. A few minutes of pushing and shoving had the trash bags in the front trunk , the oversized duffle in the passenger seat and Hank’s carrier seat belted in the tiny back seat. He spun the tires and entered the flow of traffic, such as it was. He looked at his phone. More people seemed to want a response. Ignoring them, he found the closest florist’s shop and fifteen minutes later, pulled into the strip mall that contained it. A few minutes later, he was in possession of three “Birthday Balloon Extravaganzas”, finishing off the shop’s tank of helium and a bit of Falstaff’s cash. He tied the strings around his smartwatch and let it rise and drift past the confines of the parking lot. The hastily constructed wad of tape and ribbon connecting his phone to the other two Extravaganzas generated a more labored flight, but eventually it drifted away. He looked into the shop’s camera and flipped it the bird as he left and jumped back in his car. Soon he was back on the road, relaxing with his elbow out the window. Despite the stop and go traffic, he felt safe enough to relax and make longer range plans. Even Hank had settled down for the moment. The hot air felt less oppressive somehow. He contemplated the right set of music for an escape from civilization, trying on a few genres to decide. The screen also showed that the freeway was less than a quarter mile on the right and traffic would be light. Good. Then he looked again at the screen and thought about antennas. His radio talked to the cell tower, which talked to the Internet. Every application knew where he was. Which meant Tran’s investors or their ex-employer could know as well. One hand on the wheel, he looked around for something to pull the radio out of the dashboard. Hank meowed. “You have an idea? No? Please be quiet” Rummaging around in the glove box, he noticed an old folding knife. Falstaff slowly pried the radio from the dashboard while occasionally looking up at the tailgate of a modern SUV ahead of him. Realizing there was a rear-facing camera on the SUV staring at him, he slid down below the dash as best he could. A few more stop and go cycles and the radio was free of the dash. He unplugged cables by feel, but one took his attention away from the road while he pried at it with his knife He was distracted by a horn blast by his ear. Another SUV was forcing itself into his lane while the driver gesticulated at him. Falstaff reciprocated by waving angrily at him, knife still in hand. The driver of the SUV held the horn down, angering Falstaff enough to open the window and throw the now free radio at the noise. Feeling the embarrassment, he jerked the wheel to the right and accelerated into the bicycle lane with a chirp of tires and howl from the engine behind him. A minute later, he was on the highway, quickly leaving Silicon Valley. He hoped to make the Nevada line before anyone figured out what he was doing.
[M] - Mandatory. The update contains security fixes or contains fork update (wallet will stop working after some height reach). IMPORTANT: The latest version is 0.5.0.1 (contains minor update after 0.5.0.1)
Meet Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0 update - Fermi Paradox. In this update we will discuss 3 updates and do one announcement in the source code, 2 of them will be the first among any Cryptonote projects:
Wallet Scan speedup thanks to ECC and multi-threading library. Increased wallet scan speed when processing blockchain. New Elliptic Curve Cryptography library combined with implemented multi-threading that ustilises user's CPU results in reduced block verification up to 5x times compared with previous modes.
Plateau emission curve. Ryo's block reward changes every 6-months following a "Plateau Curve" distribution model. The modification of emission curve was initiated and debated with Ryo community. The following fork will finalise and implement that change.Notice: the difference between previous and this model will take effect at block height 394470.Read more about Ryo plateau emission curve
Various code edits, refactoring and minor fixes. There are multiple code fixes and edits that could be considered minor when looked in particular, but when looked in general - result in more than 35.000 lines of code being changed making core code more clean, optimised and bugfixed.Check Ryo Github repository
level 0 - everyone can look into your wallet and know your transactions (BTC level)
level 1 - nobody can see inside of your wallet, but each note has a serial number (yes, this is real life money level and in CN coins is implemented using stealth addresses)
level 2 - notes you have don't have a serial number to a guy that gave you one, and no-one can't know if you spent it later (In CN coins it is implemented using ring signatures - which are the failing ones)
What we are saying is over the past year or two, researches stripped ring signatures of their privacy properties so much, that we think it is no longer fair to say that we (or Monero, which is even worse since it has even smaller ring size compared to Ryo) or any other CN project that uses it - meet the level 2 of privacy. So, summarising in non-tech words what does it mean - when you are doing a transaction and want to imagine how it looks like in system:
bitcoin - "I spent output 10, worth 1 BTC and output 22, worth 0.5 BTC"
ring signature (current CN coins) - "I spent output 10, 14, 18 or 20, and output 16, 18, 19, or 22"
Please update your wallets before this block, or your previous wallet will stop synchronising after the block 362000:
Ryo Wallet Atom: download latest Atom installer when annouced update to version 1.5.0, start it and perform reinstall.
Ryo cli binaries: download or compile from source updated binaries from Github version 0.5.0.0 and unzip it, and place your wallet key files in new folder.
Pool owners and exchanges are notified about updating their nodes to the latest version before the fork.
Questions you might have regarding the fork:
What will happen with mining algorithm - will it change or what does "fork" mean - coin is split on 2? No, "fork" basically means major code update that is being activated on a specified block height. There will be no mining algorithm change or chainsplit.
Ryo roadmap indicates that you had in plans reaching 100x ring sizes. In light of future introduction of ZK-proofs does it mean that this is not aplicable? Yes, we eventually will be replacing ring signature technology on ZK-proofs, which is more fundamental change than trying to "beat dead horse" with ring signatures.
What about atomic swaps? Ryo roadmap indicates it being planned, is it still possible with introducing ZK-proofs? Yes it is! And we aim to implement this feature after all necessary updates in core code. It is important to have everything implemented and tested before adding that feature.
What is a ZK-proof? ZK stands for zero-knowledge. In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that they know a value x, without conveying any information apart from the fact that they know the value xYou can read more about zero-knowledge proof (with real life examples) here.
Will blockchain grow faster (what about tx size) when moving to ZK-proofs? Overall, transactions and blocks using ZK-proofs will be even smaller in size than pre-fork ring signatures with bulletproofs! Plus it enables transactions to be aggregated together - this is obviously a major scalability gain for Ryo Currency.
I heard or as far I understand that ZK-proofs are somewhat less private? Does it mean that you are not privacy-oriented project anymore? No, in short - we decided to do this change to second gen. ZK-proofs, because ring signatures as is are too weak on providing enough for us default level of privacy and overall are considered now as an obsolete technology. So we don't want to say that we have a privacy level of 2, when research shows that it is not.
Ok, after 0.5.0.0 fork - will we be using uniform payment ID-s to do transactions on exchanges? Yes. There are no changes regarding usage of payment ID-s and integrated addresses. We will be still using ring signatures, but also are announcing our goal on moving to ZK-proofs.
What else is there in plans/ideas you have in development of Ryo? Besides all plans and development ongoing with Ryo (wallets, infrastructure, core code and researches) we also developed and improve Mining platform RagerX. It is a all-in-one mining platform that unites a miner, pplns pool, OS, GUI flasher utillity, pool frontend and has advanced social features as well as 2 level affiliate program. In observable future we will add Cryptonight-GPU mining possibillity.We are implementing RagerX so people can mine CPU coins and Ryo simultaneously. Which means more eyes on Ryo, especially from fresh members.
Are the ring signature issues that have been discovered are applicable to other ring signature based coins like Monero? Yes.
dcrd: Several steps towards multipeer downloads completed: an optimization to use in-memory block index and a new 1337 chain view. Maintenance: improved test coverage, upgrading dependency management system and preparing for the upcoming Go 1.11 release. dcrwallet: A big change introducing optional privacy-preserving SPV sync mode was merged. In this mode dcrwallet does not download the full blockchain but only gets the "filters", uses them to determine which blocks it needs and fetches them from random nodes on the network. This has on-disk footprint of 300-400 MB and sync time of minutes, compared to ~3.4 GB and sync time of hours for full sync (these are rough estimates).
jy-p: the server side of SPV (in dcrd) was deployed in v1.2.0, the client side of SPV (in dcrwallet) is in our next release, v1.3.0. Still some minor bugs in SPV that are being worked out. There will be an update to add the latest features from BIP 157/158 in the next few months. SPV will be optional in v1.3.0, but it will become the default after we get a proper header commitment for it (#general)
Decrediton: besides regular bugfixes and design improvements, several components are being developed in parallel like SPV mode, Politeia integration and Trezor support. Politeia: testing started on mainnet, thanks to everyone who is participating. A lot of testing, bugfixing and polishing is happening in preparation for full mainnet launch. There are also a few missing features to be added before launch, e.g. capacity to edit a proposal and versioning for that, discussion to remain open once voting starts. Decrediton integration is moving forward, check out this video for a demo and this meta issue for the full checklist. Trezor: Decrediton integration of initial Trezor support is in progress and there is a demo. Android: app design version 2.0 completed. dcrdata: development of several chart visualizations was completed and is awaiting deployment. Specifically, voting agendas and historic charts are merged while ticket pool visualization is in testing. atomicswap: @glendc is seeking reviews of his Ethereum support pull request. Dev activity stats for July: 252 active PRs, 220 master commits, 34,754 added and 12,847 deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 6-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: the month started at 40.5 and ended at 51.6 PH/s, with a low of 33.3 and a new all time high of 68.4 PH/s. F2Pool is leading with 40-45%, followed by the new BeePool at 15-25% and coinmine.pl at 18-23%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 92.6 DCR (-2.1). The price started the month at 94.6 and quickly retreated to month's low of 85 until 1,860 tickets were bought within a single period (versus target 720). This pushed the pool of tickets to 41,970 (2.5% above target), which in turn caused 10 price increases in a row to the month's high of 100.4. This was the highest ticket price seen on the new ticket price algorithm which has been in effect since Jul 2017. Second half of the month there was unusually low volatility between 92 and 94 DCR per ticket. Locked DCR held between 3.75 and 3.87 million or 46.6-48.0% of supply (+0.1% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 212 public listening and 216 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 67% on v1.2.0 (+10%), 24% on v1.1.2 (-1%), 7% on v1.1.0 (-7%). Node count data is not perfect but we can see the steady trend of upgrading to v1.2.0. This version of dcrd is notable for serving compact filters. The increased count of such full nodes allows the developers to test SPV client mode in preparations for the upcoming v1.3.0 release.
Obelisk posted three updates in July. For the most recent daily updates join their Discord. New miner from iBeLink: DSM7T hashes Blake256 at 7 TH/s or Blake2b at 3.5 TH/s, consumes 2,100 W and costs $3,800, shipping Aug 5-10. There were also speculations about the mysterious Pangolin Whatsminer DCR with the speed of 44 TH/s at 2,200 W and the cost of $3,888, shipping November. If you know more about it please share with us in #pow-mining channel.
emiliomann: stakebrasil is one of the pools with the lowest number of missed and expired tickets. It was one of the first and has a smaller percentage than the most recent ones who haven’t had the time to do so. (...) The Brazilian pool should be the one with the more servers spread around the world: 6 to decrease the latency. This is to explain to you why the [pool fee] rate of 5% (currently around 0.06 DCR) on the reward is also one of the highest. girino: 8 voting wallets now. I just finished setting up a new one yesterday. All of them in different datacenters, 3 in europe, 3 in north america, 1 in brazil and one in asia. We also have 3 more servers, 1 for the front end, one for "stats" and one for dcrdata. (#general)
On the mining side, Luxor started a new set of pool servers inside mainland China, while zpool has enabled Decred mining. StatX announced Decred integration into their live dashboard and public chat. Decred was added to Satowallet with BTC and ETH trading pairs. Caution: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.
Marina Silva is the first presidential candidate in Brazil using blockchain to keep all their electoral donations transparent and traceable. VotoLegal uses Decred technology, awesome use case! (reddit)
We continue to see institutional interest in DCR. Large block buyers love the concept of staking as a way to earn additional income and appreciate the stakeholder rights it affords them. Likening a DCR investment to an activist shareholdebondholder gives these institutions some comfort while dipping their toes into a burgeoning new asset class.
Targeted advertising reports released for June and July. As usual, reach @timhebel for full versions.
Big news in June: Facebook reversed their policy on banning crypto ads. ICO ads are still banned, but we should be OK. My team filled out the appeal today, so we should hopefully hear something within a few days. (u/timhebel on reddit)
After couple weeks Facebook finally responded to the appeal and the next step is to verify the domain name via DNS. A pack of Stakey Telegram stickers is now available. Have fun!
Meetup in Berlin, Germany hosted by BlueYard Capital. @jz_bz and @lftherios discussed open source incentivization, the value of governance and their respective projects @decredproject and @oscoin. See @issedjur's feedback here. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Portland, USA. @raedah's talk was "Decentralizing decision-making on the blockchain". Read his report here and see on the photos how the Big Stakey was entertaining the public. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
oregonisaac: many open source devs at OSCON were VERY interested in Politeia and it was probably the #1 hook that resulted in lots of long conversations about what makes Decred unique from the ground up. (#politeia)
Blockchain Meetup in Faro, Portugal. Marco Peereboom gave a talk "Decred 101" and answered questions.
Meetup in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug 2. @moo31337 and @mm will be presenting on Decred with talk "Decred 101 - Governance with skin in the game". Co-hosted by The Block Cafe. Free entrance.
Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan on Aug 5. @morphymore will give a short intro on Decred.
OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on Aug 9. @joshuam will introduce Decred and on-chain governance and take part in a panel discussion.
Twitter: Ari Paul debates "There can be only one" aka "highlander argument". Reddit and Forum: how ticket pool size influences average vote time; roadmap concerns; why ticket price was volatile; ideas for using Reddit chat for dcrtrader and alternative chat systems; insette's write-up on Andrew Stone's GROUP proposal for miner-validated tokenization that is superior to current OP_RETURN-based schemes; James Liu's paper to extend atomic swaps to financial derivatives; what happens when all DCR are mined, tail emission and incentives for miners. Chats: why tickets don't have 100% chance to vote; ideas for more straightforward marketing; long-running chat about world economy and failure modes; @brandon's thoughts on tokenizing everything, ICOs, securities, sidechains and more; challenges of staking with Trezor; ideas how to use CryptoSteel wallet with Decred; why exchange can't stake your coins, how staking can increase security, why the function to export seed from wallet is bad idea and why dcrwallet doesn't ever store the seed; ticket voting math; discussion about how GitHub workflow forces to depend on modern web browser and possible alternatives; funding marketing and education in developing markets, vetting contractors based on deliverables, "Decred contractor clearance", continued in #governance. #dex channel continues to attract thinkers and host chats about influence of exchanges, regulation, HFT, lot sizes, liquidity, on-chain vs off-chain swaps, to name a few topics. #governance also keeps growing and hosting high quality conversations.
In July DCR was trading in USD 56-76 and BTC 0.0072-0.0109 range. A recovery started after a volume boost of up to $10.5 m on Fex around Jul 13, but once Bitcoin headed towards USD ~8,000 DCR declined along with most altcoins. WalletInvestor posted a prediction on dcrtrader. Decred was noticed in top 10 mineable coins on coinmarketcap.com.
One million PCs in China were infected via browser plugins to mine Decred, Siacoin and Digibyte. In a Unchained podcast episode David Vorick shared why ASICs are better than GPUs even if they tend toward mining centralization and also described Obelisk's new Launchpad service. (missed in June issue) Sia project moved to GitLab. The stated reasons are to avoid the risk of depending on centralized service, to avoid vendor lock-in, better continuous integration and testing, better access control and the general direction to support decentralized and open source projects. Luxor explained why PPS pools are better. @nic__carter published slides from his talk "An Overview of Governance in Blockchains" from Zcon0. This article arguing the importance of governance systems dates back to 2007. Bancor wallet was hacked. This reminds us about the fake feeling of decentralizaion, that custody of funds is dangerous and that smart contracts must have minimum complexity and be verifiable. Circle announced official Poloniex mobile apps for iOS and Android. On Jul 27 Circle announced delisting of 9 coins from Poloniex that led to a loss of 23-81% of their value same day. Sad reminder about how much a project can depend on a single centralized exchange. DCR supply and market cap is now correct on onchainfx.com and finally, on coinmarketcap.com. Thanks to @sumiflow, @jz and others doing the tedious work to reach out the various websites.
About This Issue
New Year's Resolution: I will support Maxwell’s Scaling Roadmap for Core
Stop. Before you downvote, let me explain. No, I have not been hired by Blockstream (I turned down their offer ;) The reason I support Maxwell’s Scaling Roadmap is because it adds finality to this debate: There will be no increase to the max block size limit by Core in 2016. If you share my view, then this is unreasonable. The block size limit needs to rise, and it needs to rise soon. Since Core has made it clear that they will not do this, the only option is to deprecate Core in favour of competing implementations. As part of my New Year’s resolution, I will stop trying to convince Core developers to change their minds. They have made their decision and I will respect that. Instead, I will work with other like-minded individuals to return Bitcoin back to Satoshi’s original vision for a system that could scale up to a worldwide payment network and a decentralized monetary system. I will also welcome existing developers from Core to join me in these efforts. The guiding principle for this new implementation is that the evolution of the network is decided by the code people freely choose to run. Consensus is therefore an emergent property, objectively represented by the longest proof-of-work chain. The final sentence of the Bitcoin white paper states: “They [nodes/miners] vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.” It is this mechanism of "voting with their CPU power" that keeps Bitcoin permissionless and uncensorable. Were it possible to compel miners to run a specific application with a specific set of rules then it would be trivial for the owner of the codebase to, for example, invalidate transactions, modify the inflation schedule, block certain bitcoin addresses or IP ranges, limit the quantity of transactions in a block, or implement any other centralized policies. In other words, Bitcoin only maintains its intrinsically valuable properties of being permissionless, uncensorable, trustless, and uninflatable, precisely because the software is not, and should not be, controlled by any single governance entity. So please join me in an effort to move away from the single governance entity that presently controls and handicaps Bitcoin: Core. Let me conclude by saying that what is unfolding is the best possible scenario: we will get a significant block size limit increase in 2016 and we will decentralize development. Happy New Years everyone!
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
Typical semantics games and hair-splitting and bullshitting from Greg. But I guess we shouldn't expect too much honesty or even understanding from someone like Greg who thinks that miners don't control Bitcoin. AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how Bitcoin mining works
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
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/ So here we have Greg this week, desperately engaging in his usual little "semantics" games - claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank - when the real point is that: AXA is clearly one of the most powerful fiat finance firms in the world. Maybe when he's talking about the hairball of C++ spaghetti code that him and his fellow devs at Core/Blockstream are slowing turning their version of Bitcoin's codebase into... in that arcane (and increasingly irrelevant :) area maybe he still can dazzle some people with his usual meaningless technically correct but essentially erroneous bullshit. But when it comes to finance and economics, Greg is in way over his head - and in those areas, he can't bullshit anyone. In fact, pretty much everything Greg ever says about finance or economics or banks is simply wrong. He thinks he's proved some point by claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank. But AXA is far worse than a mere "bank" or a mere "French multinational insurance company". AXA is one of the top-five "companies that control the world" - and now (some people think) AXA is in charge of paying for Bitcoin "development". A recent infographic published in the German Magazine "Die Zeit" showed that AXA is indeed the second-most-connected finance company in the world - right at the rotten "core" of the "fantasy fiat" financial system that runs our world today.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/ So, let's get a few things straight here. "AXA" might not be a household name to many people. And Greg was "technically right" when he denied that AXA is a "bank" (which is basically the only kind of "right" that Greg ever is these days: "technically" :-) But AXA is one of the most powerful finance companies in the world. AXA was started as a French insurance company. And now it's a French multinational insurance company. But if you study up a bit on AXA, you'll see that they're not just any old "insurance" company. AXA has their fingers in just about everything around the world - including a certain team of toxic Bitcoin devs who are radically trying to change Bitcoin:
And ever since AXA started throwing tens of millions of dollars in filthy fantasy fiat at a certain toxic dev named Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, suddenly he started saying that we can't have nice things like the gradually increasing blocksizes (and gradually increasing Bitcoin prices - which fortunately tend to increase proportional to the square of the blocksize because of Metcalfe's law :-) which were some of the main reasons most of us invested in Bitcoin in the first place. My, my, my - how some people have changed!
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
AXA would be exposed as bankrupt in a world dominated by a "counterparty-free" asset class like Bitcoin.
AXA pays Greg's salary - and Greg is one of the major forces who has been actively attempting to block Bitcoin's on-chain scaling - and there's no way getting around the fact that artificially small blocksizes do lead to artificially low prices.
AXA kinda reminds me of AIG If anyone here was paying attention when the cracks first started showing in the world fiat finance system around 2008, you may recall the name of another mega-insurance company, that was also one of the most connected finance companies in the world: AIG.
Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.
Bernanke did say he believed an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and that the heavy use of derivatives made the AIG problem potentially more explosive. An AIG failure, thanks to the firm's size and its vast web of trading partners, "would have triggered an intensification of the general run on international banking institutions," Bernanke said.
http://fortune.com/2010/09/02/why-the-fed-saved-aig-and-not-lehman/ Just like AIG, AXA is a "systemically important" finance company - one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. And (like all major banks and insurance firms), AXA is drowning in worthless debt and bets (derivatives). Most of AXA's balance sheet would go up in a puff of smoke if they actually did "mark-to-market" (ie, if they actually factored in the probability of the counterparties of their debts and bets actually coming through and paying AXA the full amount it says on the pretty little spreadsheets on everyone's computer screens). In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA has mainly debt and bets. They rely on counterparties to pay them - maybe, someday, if the whole system doesn't go tits-up by then. In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA does not hold the "private keys" to their so-called wealth :-) So, like most giant multinational banks and insurers who spend all their time playing with debts and bets, AXA has been teetering on the edge of the abyss since 2008 - held together by chewing gum and paper clips and the miracle of Quantitative Easing - and also by all the clever accounting tricks that instantly become possible when money can go from being a gleam in a banker's eye to a pixel on a screen with just a few keystrokes - that wonderful world of "fantasy fiat" where central bankers ninja-mine billions of dollars in worthless paper and pixels into existence every month - and then for some reason every other month they have to hold a special "emergency central bankers meeting" to deal with the latest financial crisis du jour which "nobody could have seen coming". AIG back in 2008 - much like AXA today - was another "systemically important" worldwide mega-insurance giant - with most of its net worth merely a pure fantasy on a spreadsheet and in a four-color annual report - glossing over the ugly reality that it's all based on toxic debts and derivatives which will never ever be paid off. Mega-banks Mega-insurers like AXA are addicted to the never-ending "fantasy fiat" being injected into the casino of musical chairs involving bets upon bets upon bets upon bets upon bets - counterparty against counterparty against counterparty against counterparty - going 'round and 'round on the big beautiful carroussel where everyone is waiting on the next guy to pay up - and meanwhile everyone's cooking their books and sweeping their losses "under the rug", offshore or onto the taxpayers or into special-purpose vehicles - while the central banks keep printing up a trillion more here and a trillion more there in worthless debt-backed paper and pixels - while entire nations slowly sink into the toxic financial sludge of ever-increasing upayable debt and lower productivity and higher inflation, dragging down everyone's economies, enslaving everyone to increasing worktime and decreasing paychecks and unaffordable healthcare and education, corrupting our institutions and our leaders, distorting our investment and "capital allocation" decisions, inflating housing and healthcare and education beyond everyone's reach - and sending people off to die in endless wars to prop up the deadly failing Saudi-American oil-for-arms Petrodollar ninja-mined currency cartel. In 2008, when the multinational insurance company AIG (along with their fellow gambling buddies at the multinational investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehmans) almost went down the drain due to all their toxic gambling debts, they also almost took the rest of the world with them. And that's when the "core" dev team working for the miners central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ - who all report to the "central bank of central banks" BIS in Basel) - started cranking up their mining rigs printing presses and keyboards and pixels to the max, unilaterally manipulating the "issuance schedule" of their shitcoins and flooding the world with tens of trillions in their worthless phoney fiat to save their sorry asses after all their toxic debts and bad bets. AXA is at the very rotten "core" of this system - like AIG, a "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") mega-gigantic multinational insurance company - a fantasy fiat finance firm quietly sitting at the rotten core of our current corrupt financial system, basically impacting everything and everybody on this planet. The "masters of the universe" from AXA are the people who go to Davos every year wining and dining on lobster and champagne - part of that elite circle that prints up endless money which they hand out to their friends while they continue to enslave everyone else - and then of course they always turn around and tell us we can't have nice things like roads and schools and healthcare because "austerity". (But somehow we always can have plenty of wars and prisons and climate change and terrorism because for some weird reason our "leaders" seem to love creating disasters.) The smart people at AXA are probably all having nightmares - and the smart people at all the other companies in that circle of "too-big-to-fail" "fantasy fiat finance firms" are probably also having nightmares - about the following very possible scenario: If Bitcoin succeeds, debt-and-derivatives-dependent financial "giants" like AXA will probably be exposed as having been bankrupt this entire time. All their debts and bets will be exposed as not being worth the paper and pixels they were printed on - and at that point, in a cryptocurrency world, the only real money in the world will be "counterparty-free" assets ie cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - where all you need to hold is your own private keys - and you're not dependent on the next deadbeat debt-ridden fiat slave down the line coughing up to pay you. Some of those people at AXA and the rest of that mafia are probably quietly buying - sad that they missed out when Bitcoin was only $10 or $100 - but happy they can still get it for $1000 while Blockstream continues to suppress the price - and who knows, what the hell, they might as well throw some of that juicy "banker's bonus" into Bitcoin now just in case it really does go to $1 million a coin someday - which it could easily do with just 32MB blocks, and no modifications to the code (ie, no SegWit, no BU, no nuthin', just a slowly growing blocksize supporting a price growing roughly proportional to the square of the blocksize - like Bitcoin always actually did before the economically illiterate devs at Blockstream imposed their centrally planned blocksize on our previously decentralized system). Meanwhile, other people at AXA and other major finance firms might be taking a different tack: happy to see all the disinfo and discord being sown among the Bitcoin community like they've been doing since they were founded in late 2014 - buying out all the devs, dumbing down the community to the point where now even the CTO of Blockstream Greg Mawxell gets the whitepaper totally backwards. Maybe Core/Blockstream's failure-to-scale is a feature not a bug - for companies like AXA. After all, AXA - like most of the major banks in the Europe and the US - are now basically totally dependent on debt and derivatives to pretend they're not already bankrupt. Maybe Blockstream's dead-end road-map (written up by none other than Greg Maxwell), which has been slowly strangling Bitcoin for over two years now - and which could ultimately destroy Bitcoin via the poison pill of Core/Blockstream's SegWit trojan horse - maybe all this never-ending history of obstrution and foot-dragging and lying and failure from Blockstream is actually a feature and not a bug, as far as AXA and their banking buddies are concerned.
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/ I don't know how a so-called Bitcoin dev can sleep at night knowing he's getting paid by fucking AXA - a company that would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin becomes a major world currency. Greg must have to go through some pretty complicated mental gymastics to justify in his mind what everyone else can see: he is a fucking sellout to one of the biggest fiat finance firms in the world - he's getting paid by (and defending) a company which would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin ever achieved multi-trillion dollar market cap. Greg is literally getting paid by the second-most-connected "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") finance firm in the world - which will probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin were ever to assume its rightful place as a major currency with total market cap measured in the tens of trillions of dollars, destroying most of the toxic sludge of debt and derivatives keeping a bank financial giant like AXA afloat. And it may at first sound batshit crazy (until You Do The Math), but Bitcoin actually really could go to one-million-dollars-a-coin in the next 8 years or so - without SegWit or BU or anything else - simply by continuing with Satoshi's original 32MB built-in blocksize limit and continuing to let miners keep blocks as small as possible to satisfy demand while avoiding orphans - a power which they've had this whole friggin' time and which they've been managing very well thank you.
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/ Meanwhile Greg continues to work for Blockstream which is getting tens of millions of dollars from a company which would go bankrupt if Bitcoin were to actually scale on-chain to 32MB blocks and 1 million dollars per coin without all of Greg's meddling. So Greg continues to get paid by AXA, spreading his ignorance about economics and his lies about Bitcoin on these forums. In the end, who knows what Greg's motivations are, or AXA's motivations are. But one thing we do know is this: Satoshi didn't put Greg Maxwell or AXA in charge of deciding the blocksize. The tricky part to understand about "one CPU, one vote" is that it does not mean there is some "pre-existing set of rules" which the miners somehow "enforce" (despite all the times when you hear some Core idiot using words like "consensus layer" or "enforcing the rules"). The tricky part about really understanding Bitcoin is this: Hashpower doesn't just enforce the rules - hashpower makes the rules. And if you think about it, this makes sense. It's the only way Bitcoin actually could be decentralized. It's kinda subtle - and it might be hard for someone to understand if they've been a slave to centralized authorities their whole life - but when we say that Bitcoin is "decentralized" then what it means is: We all make the rules. Because if hashpower doesn't make the rules - then you'd be right back where you started from, with some idiot like Greg Maxwell "making the rules" - or some corrupt too-big-to-fail bank debt-and-derivative-backed "fantasy fiat financial firm" like AXA making the rules - by buying out a dev team and telling us that that dev team "makes the rules". But fortunately, Greg's opinions and ignorance and lies don't matter anymore. Miners are waking up to the fact that they've always controlled the blocksize - and they always will control the blocksize - and there isn't a single goddamn thing Greg Maxwell or Blockstream or AXA can do to stop them from changing it - whether the miners end up using BU or Classic or BitcoinEC or they patch the code themselves.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU Core deliberately provides software with a blocksize policy pre-baked in. The ONLY thing BU-style software changes is that baking in. It refuses to bundle controversial blocksize policy in with the rest of the code it is offering. It unties the blocksize settings from the dev teams, so that you don't have to shop for both as a packaged unit. The idea is that you can now have Core software security without having to submit to Core blocksize policy. Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs. This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is." So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC). BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk. The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it. What does it tell you that Core and its supporters are up in arms about a change that merely makes something more convenient for users and couldn't be prevented from happening anyway? Attacking the adjustable blocksize feature in BU and Classic as "dangerous" is a kind of trap, as it is an implicit admission that Bitcoin was being protected only by a small barrier of inconvenience, and a completely temporary one at that. If this was such a "danger" or such a vector for an "attack," how come we never heard about it before? Even if we accept the improbable premise that inconvenience is the great bastion holding Bitcoin together and the paternalistic premise that stakeholders need to be fed consensus using a spoon of inconvenience, we still must ask, who shall do the spoonfeeding? Core accepts these two amazing premises and further declares that Core alone shall be allowed to do the spoonfeeding. Or rather, if you really want to you can be spoonfed by other implementation clients like libbitcoin and btcd as long as they are all feeding you the same stances on controversial consensus settings as Core does. It is high time the community see central planning and abuse of power for what it is, and reject both:
Throw off central planning by removing petty "inconvenience walls" (such as baked-in, dev-recommended blocksize caps) that interfere with stakeholders coordinating choices amongst themselves on controversial matters ...
Make such abuse of power impossible by encouraging many competing implementations to grow and blossom
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/ So it's time for Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to get over his delusions of grandeur - and to admit he's just another dev, with just another opinion. He also needs to look in the mirror and search his soul and confront the sad reality that he's basically turned into a sellout working for a shitty startup getting paid by the 5th (or 4th or 2nd) "most connected", "systemically important", "too-big-to-fail", debt-and-derivative-dependent multinational bank mega-insurance giant in the world AXA - a major fiat firm firm which is terrified of going bankrupt just like that other mega-insurnace firm AIG already almost did before the Fed rescued them in 2008 - a fiat finance firm which is probably very conflicted about Bitcoin, at the very least. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by the most systemically important bank mega-insurance giant in the world, sitting at the rotten "core" of the our civilization's corrupt, dying fiat cartel. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by a mega-bank mega-insurance company that will probably go bankrupt if and when Bitcoin ever gets a multi-trillion dollar market cap, which it can easily do with just 32MB blocks and no code changes at all from clueless meddling devs like him.
Bitcoin wins the blockchain race only if it becomes widespread money
The concept of blockchain technology and its various apps is currently overhyped while bitcoin’s role of money is underestimated. If we focus on developing blockchain security and the money application for bitcoin then all other apps will come easily afterwards. Instead many developers are distracted with second stage apps like smart contracts and verifiable data which have limited practical value until a secure and decentralized blockchain with a high valued tokens is established. In addition, banks and tech giants are competing to create private blockchains and VCs impatiently finance lots of promising projects blockchain projects without any sign that they will really work. It seems like we are designing the fruit of a tree which still has a tiny stem. We should rather focus on growing a robust trunk with deep roots and only then discuss the beautiful apps that can be built on top of it. It may sound boring but we need more people devoted to the plain old problem of bitcoin used as money. Blockchain apps are important game changers but they will remain a mirage unless we have the foundation of blockchain based widespread digital currency. Going back to basics is especially important in the context of the block size problem which currently slows bitcoin’s adoption. Let’s take a closer look at what makes a blockchain work. The blockchain could be used mainly for two things — transferring value and timestamping information. For these to work properly we need the highest level of trust and security possible. Security is the main requirement for any blockchain which claims to be useful. It comes from fierce competition for the role of a temporary third party for a valuable prize. Actually when people say that there is no third party in blockchain transactions they are wrong. The third party is the miner publishing the block with our transaction. The revolutionary thing is that this third party is paid well for the service and is constantly changing because of the mining competition which is open to everyone. Therefore blockchain security equals fierce competition and fierce competition equals freedom for everyone to compete for a high valued prize. blockchain value = security security = competition = freedom to compete * prize for the winner Consequently, private blockchains which are not open for everyone to compete are inferior to those who are open. At the same time, the high value of the prize is also crucial for the competition. If the prize has zero value in an open competition there will be no participants and no security. In the bitcoin model the prize is currently 25 bitcoins + transaction fees for every block. So valuable bitcoins bring more security and additional security feeds more value in an ever growing spiral. Widespread adoption also yields more transaction fees which add up to the prize. So… Prize for the winner = block reward + transaction fees = bitcoin price + number of paid transactions per block = demand - supply of bitcoins + widespread usage = widespread usage - supply + widespread usage = 2x widespread usage - supply (fixed schedule we cannot change) Therefore… Prize for the winner = 2x widespread usage => blockchain value = security = freedom to compete + 2x widespread usage where 2x widespread usage = world’s most frequently used blockchain app = money => the ultimate blockchain winner = freedom to compete + money So the prerequisite for all the promising blockchain apps is the first and main app - money. Consequently, bitcoin must become the most secure and user friendly money in the world. Then, progressively more people will be willing to give away government currency for these digital tokens and use them as a payment now or store their value for future payments. In conclusion, money is the most crucial app for the blockchain technology. In fact, it is so important that it dwarfs all the others. Most efforts of the blockchain community should go towards helping the bitcoin system achieve maximum durability, highly fungible units and user friendly experience. EDIT: The point of this article is not to open the blocksize debate. It is to show that private blockchains are not very useful. Also the thousands of blockchain apps people get excited about are much less important relative to the plain old money function. However, it will be hard if not impossible to create widespread usage while limiting the number of transactions.
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a *literal* blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want *Bitcoin*, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
It seems like half the posts on btc is just about you [u/nullc]. This is barely even about SegWit anymore. A lot has reached the conclusion that Core is bad for Bitcoin and are looking at any argument that will support that conclusion, even if it means blocking the same thing they were asking for.
I'm not on either side in this debate, but your argument is the same as saying "Why don't core just fork btc so they can have segwit adopted?" It's pretty clear that they want bitcoin, not a btc fork, to have a bigger blocksize. Also, isn't this exactly the point of signaling, that different entities can have different opinions like in a democracy? It's not hard to understand why you guys are not getting along considering the line of argument you are displayed here, which implies: "If you don't agree with core, create your own fork. We are going to do what we want with bitcoin regardless of what you think". This type of reasoning displays an arrogance and clearly implies that for core, reaching a consensus is just a necessary inconvenience that you'd rather be without. In contrast to a true democracy, where all opinions are respected. Surely, a democratic government wouldn't ask citizens with a different political opinion to move to a different country.
Regardless of whether or not core wants bitcoin to be a democracy, you are stuck with democracy-like features, and therefore forced to cater to the majority. It has been clear that core is not taking the strategy of accepting and working together with entities that have different opinions during the scaling debate and implementation of segwit. When you completely reject the idea of a democracy, even when used in the context of being accepting of different opinions, there cannot be much hope of even an attempt of reconciliation. It is then to be expected that all your proposals are fought tooth and nail by everyone with different opinions. On a more personal note, I think it's sad to see that core is so adamantly refusing any compromise, even in their rhetoric, toward uniting the community and finding common ground for progress and scaling. I hope you are successful in implementing segwit, but I'm saddened by the divide and conflict in the community that your strategy and unyielding rhetoric has caused. I hope that you in the future will consider changing your strategy and working toward amending the rifts in the community. Personally I think you will find that progress will come much easier.
I know a few people supporting BU and can attest that their motives are genuine. In fact they assume you want to keep blocks smalls either because blockstream would make money out of it (for the less intelligent ones) or because they think you are out of touch engineers engineering for the sake of engineering and that you lost or can't comprehend the big picture (for the smarter ones, not saying they are right, I'm personally undecided on the matter).
The reason they haven't hardforked yet is because they are trying to achieve overwhelming support so their Bitcoin fork can quickly dominate the current Bitcoin. Nobody wants to lose money. They don't FUD bitcoin, they fud Bitcoin core (To raise support for alternatives)
/bitcoin mods had a large part in forcing both sides into their respective echo chambers. I don't know if things are too far gone for consensus now, but the original issue that split the community has never been addressed or acknowledged.
Well ... hold on. I've been bouncing back and forth between /btc and /Bitcoin for a little bit now, and I'll try to draw some analogies but might go down a rabbit hole or two. Read it, and let me know your thoughts: 1) Yes, this increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase. They want on-chain transactions, not off-chain potential transactions in the future. They don't want extra code to perform this blocksize increase just the simple code that switches the 1MB to XMB. There's a lot more to their arguments but really I don't want to delve into that. 2) I think there might be a general fear about some ulterior motive by blockstream which maybe isn't obvious to everyone else, whether it's suffocating bitcoin or some other money making plans In my mind either Segwit happens and we're open to a shit ton of other awesome possibilities that takes us to the next level, or, /btc was right and Segwit happens and next thing we know our txs are being siphoned off to blockstream & their cronies. Worst case scenario, like I said before, everyone switches off the Core software and moves to BU, problem solved - unless of course I'm missing something I'm not thinking about that might actually jail your coins to core and not allow you to move off that everyone in both of these subs are missing.
Some oppose segwit for other reasons. These reasons are being repeated over and over since sipas presentation, but you don't want to hear that. And then you deduct from that they don't want a blocksize limit increase and must have malicious intent? That's some sick logic.
it [SegWit] is a short term gain and a long term reduction. In the short term segwit will allow more transactions, but long term it is a reduction because of the asymmetric nature of how it allows 4X as many transactions in certain scenarios but 2X as many in typical usage. That means that any block increase in the future will suffer from attack vectors greater than the actual increase whereas a simple block size increase wouldn't.
You realize that SegWit doesn't actually increase the block size right? Using some tricky math you can come up with a sequence of transactions that almost hits 1.8 megs if you were to do it in non-SegWit transactions, but it has yet to be seen how much it will improve real world transaction data. The blocks are still going to be a megabyte. I'm all for activating it, but it required massive code changes, and likely won't be as effective as a one line fix would have been.
This is the source of the rift in the community. No one believes core will actually increase the blocksize. Moreover, most were expecting SegWit as a HF with the 2x blocksize increase, not shell games creating more block space for SegWit data, giving that data a 75% discount vs. other transaction space (without any discussion with the broader community), and calling that a blocksize increase. We already had trust issues, making the paper napkin sketch of blockstream come true with this 75% discount isn't helping! Core should fully commit to a 2MB HF next. Not MAST, not other crap, a straightforward, no tricks, blocksize increase. That would be the best next step for everyone involved. Better yet, scaling that automatically just happens, similar to BIP101.
It looks like a compromise is the only way out of this civil war. Segwit or the HF will both never happen on their own without a compromise. So doing both segwit and raising the blocksize limit at the same time, seems inevitable at some point. Hopefully sooner than later. But probably later.
I'm starting to believe the conflict isn't over how to scale, but the when we scale. More specifically, to scale before or after we allow a fee market to develop. Sure a fee market always existed, but it had no real pressure, until we let blocks fill up recently in this massive and arguably risky experiment. Core's plan was to wait forever to scale and that seems to be the main stress factor for many. SegWit takes forever to get developed, tested, activated, and actually start helping the block size. I get it, half of that is done, but it wasn't yet when people wanted an immediate fix. Other fixes on the road map for scaling are super far off and questionable. People weren't pushing for large blocks so hard because they thought it would work better than SegWit, they were pushing for large blocks because it could be done quickly, before fee market pressure started. Once profit driven miners get a taste of that pressured fee market, it will be hard to let go. If the pressure has raised the fee too much, when the scaling issue is fixed, the fees will fall and cut the legs out from underneath the profit driven miners. We may lose hash rate. Fees were to prevent spamming, they were never intended to supplement mining rewards until the mining reward schedule ran out and the currently meager fees are worth something more considerable. An experiment in creating fee market pressures is arguably experimenting with breaking the ~15 year mining reward plan and thus its quite elegant plan to slowly bring scarcity up, and with it the value, to ensure that when the mining reward schedule is complete, the value is high enough to sustain Bitcoin's security while only paying miners fees.
Block size: Reminder of BIP-100, and a point about miner voting
If you have an interest in the block size debate and haven't read Jeff Garzik's BIP-100 yet, you should. Besides having what I consider the best proposal so far, the introductory pages provide a thorough background on the block size issue (in plain English). The summary of his proposal (from the text):
1. Hard fork, to 2. Remove static 1MB block size limit. 3. *Simultaneously*, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB. 4. The historical 32MB limit remains. 5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015. 6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016. 7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks. 8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step. 9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.
The benefits should be obvious (also from the text):
G1: Demonstrates change is possible; the bitcoin protocol can be upgraded. G2: Eliminate 1MB limit as impediment to adoption. G3: Get hard fork risk out of the way early. G4: KISS solution, in terms of code changes. G5: Upgrade path, yet constrained until problem & solution better understood.
G3 is really important because it separates the hard fork from any potential block size change by at least 3 months, thereby greatly reducing any chance of split chains forming. The main objection in the original post and a follow up was that the voting was done by miners. As Jeff notes in the proposal, voting by miners is the "lesser of the evils" because there is no way currently to reliably poll full nodes or other stakeholders for their votes. Also as noted by Jeff in a comment, full nodes do vote for adopting this system, and need to vote again in the future to raise the block size above 32MB. More importantly though, most objections seems to equate the concept of miners that vote with the current generation of miners, i.e. mining farms and pools that operate to generate a profit from mining. The concern is that these miners will vote for block sizes that benefit their economic interests, for example keeping the block size small to reduce orphans. What this analysis misses is that fact that once the block size is determined by miners' votes, there will suddenly be an economic incentive for many stakeholders who are not currently mining, to start mining. Payment processors, exchanges, smart contracts providers, vault services, wallet makers, early adopters and others will all be motivated to participate in mining in order to influence the block size. Aside from actually mining themselves, it would seem natural for a market for votes to form. Rather than mining themselves, interested parties would pay miners to vote for their preferred block size. I could imagine this becoming a standardized bounty system, whereby interested parties post bounties for votes and miners would decide what to vote for based on the bounties offered. Although a trusted marketplace would likely suffice, there may even by a way to cryptographically guarantee that the bounty payments will be paid to the miner in exchange for their vote. And just like p2pool was created to push back against the trend of centralized mining, it would be natural for it to be extended to allow for pool users to vote for their preferred block size as well. So in summary, I believe that "voting by miners" should be seen as "voting by everyone" and should not serve as an objection to BIP-100 adoption.
It's time for a break: About the recent mess & temporary new rules
Unfortunately, I was on vacation this weekend, so I was unable to prevent /Bitcoin from becoming messy. Sorry about that. I and other moderators more-or-less cleaned it up. Report anything that we missed. Because people are still probably in a "troll-happy" mood from the lack of moderation, moderation will be increased for a while. Everyone needs some time to calm down. In particular, posts about anything especially emotionally-charged will be deleted unless they introduce some very substantial new ideas about the subject. This includes the max block size debate (any side) and /Bitcoin moderation. Also, people are continuously spamming links to inferior clones of /Bitcoin and the XT subreddit -- these links will be removed and the posters banned unless the links are remarkably appropriate for the given situation. When this sticky is removed, the rules will return to what they were previously. It is possible that some people have been or will be banned too readily due to the increased moderation. If this happens to you, mail /Bitcoin with a justification of your actions, then wait 2 days and mail again if there's no satisfactory response, then wait 4 days, then 8, 16, 32, etc. If your mail to /Bitcoin is too high-volume, we may block all further mail from you, which will make it impossible for your to appeal your ban.
/Bitcoin exists to serve Bitcoin. XT will, if/when its hardfork is activated, diverge from Bitcoin and create a separate network/currency. Therefore, it and services that support it should not be allowed on /Bitcoin. In the extremely unlikely event that the vast majority of the Bitcoin economy switches to XT and there is a strong perception that XT is the true Bitcoin, then the situation will flip and we should allow only submissions related to XT. In that case, the definition of "Bitcoin" will have changed. It doesn't make sense to support two incompatible networks/currencies -- there's only one Bitcoin, and /Bitcoin serves only Bitcoin. If a hardfork has near-unanimous agreement from Bitcoin experts and it's also supported by the vast majority of Bitcoin users and companies, we can predict with high accuracy that this new network/currency will take over the economy and become the new definition of Bitcoin. (Miners don't matter in this, and it's not any sort of vote.) This sort of hardfork can probably be adopted on /Bitcoin as soon as it has been determined that the hardfork is not absolutely against the spirit of Bitcoin (inflating out-of-schedule, for example). For right now, there will always be too much controversy around any hardfork that increases the max block size, but this will probably change as there's more debate and research, and as block space actually becomes more scarce. I could see some kind of increase gaining consensus in as soon as 6 months, though it would have to be much smaller than the increase in XT for ~everyone to agree on it so soon. There's a substantial difference between discussion of a proposed Bitcoin hardfork (which was previously always allowed here, even though I strongly disagree with many things posted) and promoting software that is programmed to diverge into a competing network/currency. The latter is clearly against the established rules of /Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin's technology will continue working fine no matter what people do, even the attempt at splitting Bitcoin up like this will harm the Bitcoin ecosystem and economy.
Why is XT considered an altcoin even though it hasn't broken away from Bitcoin yet?
Because it is intentionally programmed to diverge from Bitcoin, I don't consider it to be important that XT is not distinct from Bitcoin quite yet. If someone created a fork of Bitcoin Core that allowed miners to continue mining 25 BTC per block forever, would that be "Bitcoin" even though it doesn't split from the Bitcoin currency/network quite yet? (I'd say no.)
Can I still talk about hard fork proposals on /Bitcoin?
Right now, not unless you have something really new and substantial to say. After this sticky is removed, it will be OK to discuss any hardfork to Bitcoin, but not any software that hardforks without consensus, since that software is not Bitcoin.
If XT is an altcoin then why aren't sidechains or Lightning altcoins?
/Bitcoin is about the Bitcoin currency and network. Lightning allows you to move the Bitcoin currency. Sidechains are on-topic in general because they are a possibly-useful addition to the Bitcoin network. It is possible that some specific sidechains might not be on-topic -- this isn't clear to me yet. XT is programmed to create a separate currency and network, so it is not Bitcoin.
How do you know that there is no consensus?
Consensus is a high bar. It is not the same as a majority. In general, consensus means that there is near-unanimity. In the very particular case of a hardfork, "consensus" means "there is no noticeable probability that the hardfork will cause the Bitcoin economy to split into two or more non-negligible pieces". I know almost for certain that there is no consensus to the change in XT because Bitcoin core developers Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it. That's enough to block consensus. And it works both ways: if Gavin and Mike are strongly opposed to Pieter's BIP, then this will also block consensus on that BIP. Other than the core devs, big Bitcoin companies (especially Coinbase, BitPay, and exchanges) could block consensus, as could large groups of average users who are collectively capable of making reasonable arguments and exerting economic force (probably not just random unknown people complaining about nothing). Even though consensus is such a high bar, I think that in practice any hardfork that gets consensus among the Bitcoin Core devs and makes it into Bitcoin Core has a good chance of succeeding. But again, the developers would just be spearheading the effort, and many others could block them if necessary.
But with such a high bar, 8 MB blocks will be impossible!
If consensus can never be reached on one particular hardfork proposal, then the hardfork should never occur. Just because you want something doesn't mean that it's ever reasonable for you to hijack Bitcoin from the people who don't want it, even if your side is the majority (which it isn't in this case). This isn't some democratic country where you can always get your way with sufficient politicking. Get consensus, live without the change, or create your own altcoin. Hard forks are supposed to be hard. While some hard forks will probably be necessary in the long run, these hard forks will need to have consensus and be done properly or Bitcoin will die due to the economy being constantly shattered into several pieces, or as a side-effect of forcing through technically unsound changes that the majority of experts disagree with (like XT's 8MB block size).
Don't most experts want 8 MB blocks soon?
Not by any reasonable idea of "most experts" I can think of. For example, among people with expert flair on /Bitcoin, AFAIK any large near-term increase is opposed by nullc, petertodd, TheBlueMatt, luke-jr, pwuille, adam3us, maaku7, and laanwj. A large near-term increase is supported by gavinandresen, jgarzik, mike_hearn, and MeniRosenfeld. (Those 12 people are everyone with expert flair.) I've heard concerns that some experts who oppose any large near-term increase have conflicts of interest. But many of them have been expressing the same concerns for years, so it's unlikely that any recent possible conflict of interest is influencing them. Also, if they believed that increasing the max block size would help Bitcoin as a whole, what reason would they have to prevent this? I don't see the incentive. We don't need to trust the above list of experts, of course. But I for one have found the conservative position's arguments to be much more convincing than the huge-increase position's arguments. It's not reasonable to say, "You know a lot more than I do, and I don't see any fault in your arguments, but you must be trying to trick me due to this potential conflict of interest, so I'm going to ignore you."
Who are you working for?
I am not an employee of anyone but myself. As far as I know my only incentives for engaging in this policy are to make Bitcoin as strong as possible for ideological reasons, and in the long-term to increase the Bitcoin price. When I make policies, I do so because I believe that they are right. I am not being paid for my work on /Bitcoin or for creating certain policies. It would have been far easier for me to simply allow XT. If I was a politician or a business, I probably would have bowed to community demands already. And on several occasions I have very seriously considered the possibility that I could be wrong here and the community right. But in the end I just don't see any way to both reasonably and consistently deal with XT and cases similar to XT except to ban them on /Bitcoin. Additionally, I am further motivated by my knowledge that a "hostile hardfork" like the one in XT is very harmful for Bitcoin no matter what the change entails, and that the change in XT is in fact amazingly bad.
See my previous posts on this subject and the discussion in their child comments. Keep in mind that my comments are often downvoted to the point of being hidden by default.
Also, someone who could be Satoshi posted here. This email address was actually used by Satoshi before he left, and the email apparently did come from that email address legitimately (not a spoof). Whether he's actually Satoshi or not, I agree with what he's saying.
Just because many people want something doesn't make it right. There is example after example of this in history. You might reasonably believe that democracy is the best we can do in government (though I disagree), but it's not the best we can do with private and independent forums on the free market. If you disagree with /Bitcoin policy, you can do one of these things:
Try to convince us moderators that we are wrong. We have thought about these issues very deeply already, so just stating your opinion is insufficient. You need to make an argument from existing policy, from an ethical axiom which we might accept, or from utilitarianism.
Move to a different subreddit.
Accept /Bitcoin's policies even though you don't agree with them. Maybe post things that are counter to our policies in a different subreddit.
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely. If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace. The purpose of moderation is to make the community a good one, which sometimes includes causing people to leave.
You can post comments about moderation policy here, but nowhere else.
Motivation BIP 100 proposes a limit determined by super-majority miner vote, up to a maximum explicit limit of 32 MB. Specifically, the preferred block size limit of a miner is expressed in the Coinbase transaction, and the minimum block size limit value of the middle 60 percent of the values of the last 12,000 blocks becomes the new limit, with a maximum change of 2x in either direction. The original draft of BIP 100 did not contain the explicit 32 MB limit, but this restriction was added due to concern about the potential for the mining network to decide to increase the limit to levels detrimental to network decentralization. While eliminating one risk, the addition of the 32 MB limit introduced a new one: a future hard fork to raise the 32 MB limit. As has been witnessed over the last year in the debate over replacing the 1 MB limit, hard forks that deal with the block size limit are highly contentious, due to their far-reaching consequences. This contention makes such hard forks risky, as it increases the risk of a hard fork without full consensus occurring, which would carry with it a significant risk of Bitcoin splitting into two distinct and non-interoperable networks and blockchains. The Bitcoin userbase and development community will undoubtedly be significantly larger, with more diversity of views, and less cohesion amongst the various stakeholders in the Bitcoin economy, when conditions require executing a hard fork to raise the 32 MB limit, and therefore the risks associated with the hard fork will likely be much greater than the already considerable risks associated with the hard fork to replace the static 1 MB limit. For these reasons, it would be preferable to modify BIP 100 to remove the explicit 32 MB limit, and find an alternate means of mitigating the risks to network decentralization from allowing miner preference to set the block size limit. Proposal The proposed solution is to create a predefined schedule of growing upper and lower bounds for the block size limit value, within which miner preference determines the exact value using the same mechanism as proposed in BIP 100, but which cannot be escaped through miner vote. Specifications Two variations of the bounded solution are offered, a 'simple bounded hash power mediated limit', and an 'enhanced bounded hashpower mediated limit'. Simple bounded hash power mediated limit (SBHML): The 'minimum block size limit' increases by 10 percent a year, and the 'maximum block size limit' increases by 40 percent a year, for 30 years. After 30 years, the minimum block size limit increases by 0 percent a year, and the maximum block size limit is increased by 30 percent a year. Enhanced bounded hash power mediated limit (EBHML): At every block, a base block size limit, B, is calculated from the central moving average of the block size limit 262500 blocks (approx 5 years) in the past, with the mean calculated from the 52,500 blocks on each side of the central block, plus the central block. The minimum block size limit of a given block is 1.61051 (10 percent annual growth for five years) times B, for 30 years. The maximum block size limit of a given block is 5.37824 (40 percent annual growth for five years) times B, for 30 years. The annual growth factor changes to 0 and 30 percent, for the minimum and maximum block size limit, respectively, after 30 years. Comparison between EBHML and SBHML At the cost of greater complexity, the EBHML proposal reduces the range of possible block size limit values over nearer-term time-scales, thus increasing the predictability of the block size limit, and reducing, in proportion to how near-term the time frame, the maximum size of swings in the block size limit. The difference between the minimum and maximum block size limit, and by extension, the maximum potential size of the swings in the miner defined block size limit, grows with time in the SBHML proposal, increasing the risks posed by irresponsible stewardship of the block size limit by the mining majority, while the EBHML lacks this negative quality. EBHML is therefore recommended over SBHML. Rationale By having an automatically increasing upper and lower bound for the block size limit, the risk that BIP 100 contains that another hard fork will be needed in the future to accommodate the need for larger blocks is significantly reduced. The dynamic limit also provides the same function as the explicit 32 MB limit in the BIP 100 proposal, in limiting the potential damage done to decentralization from the mining network choosing a too-high limit. The choice of 10 and 40 percent per year growth for the minimum and maximum block size limit, respectively, for the first 30 years is premised on projected minimum and maximum growth in broadband cost-performance. These figures are reduced to 0 and 30 percent per year after 30 years because of the assumed likelihood of investments in broadband growth eventually seeing diminishing returns as low hanging fruit for cost-performance gains become increasingly scarce.
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS? A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream. We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%? A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network. Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future? A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night). I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second. Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned. Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely? A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time. When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before. Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks. A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful. I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good. I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them. Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem? A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things. We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe? A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise. My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people. The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create. “Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever. It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary? A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else. I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers. And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork? A: Lightning does not need a hard fork. It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly. I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream? A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached. A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015. The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents. I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit. Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests? A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically. He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time. Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy? A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things. Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say. A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer. The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning. Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan? A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy. Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all. A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks. And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing). I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features). I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions: Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling? A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing. Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team? A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it. Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic. The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two. I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj. Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this? A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions. The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects. Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners. A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning. Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners. Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed. A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been. I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018. Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split? A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain. Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.? A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic? A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap. We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms? A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down. I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io… And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them! I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"? A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.” As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn? A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now? Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks. A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful. I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser. In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next. As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not. Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
Hi Gavin, I have some questions: Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community? A: 1) Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects. Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic. Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out). Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently. Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else? A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project. Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin? A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible. Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be? A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have. Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times. Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future? A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong. Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you! A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture. I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen! Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin. A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood. 15. satoshi Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions? A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download. The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
I'm on board with classic
I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions: Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high. Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners. Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting? *The questioner further explained his concern. Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem. A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin). Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization? A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now. And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time. Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa? A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal. I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design. Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)? A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not. Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap? A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else. Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price? A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project. Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business. Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing. Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info? A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions. Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ? A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that. Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core? A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin? A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
This includes the max block size debate (any side) and r/Bitcoin moderation. Also, people are continuously spamming links to inferior clones of r/Bitcoin and the XT subreddit -- these links will be removed and the posters banned unless the links are remarkably appropriate for the given situation. When this sticky is removed, the rules will return to what they were previously. It is possible ... In some ways, the block size debate can be seen as a debate on how Bitcoin’s consensus rules are determined. Should they be set in stone and difficult to change, as many Bitcoin Core proponents… List of academic papers that relate to Bitcoin scalability and interoperability. The block-size limit debate has dominated Bitcoin blogs, forums, ... For instance, from the perspective of an SPV node there is no such thing as inflation schedule or a 21 million bitcoin cap; miners are free to create bitcoins out of thin air if they want to.” And while the cheating of SPV nodes could be seen as a short-term problem, some decentralists argue that a drop in full nodes might ... Still, the block size debate will not go away anytime soon, and Bitcoin Cash has been an interesting experiment to follow. After four years allocated to this discussion, the trade-offs associated ...
Bitcoin blocksize debate - An overview of both sides arguments
What is Bitcoin? Follow Evander Smart, Bitcoin journalist, author and video producer on a journey into Bitcoin, "The Future of Money" In these videos, learn Bitcoin facts, tips, lessons, and the ... The bitcoin blocksize debate has been going for a while now. There is 2 factions that are discussing it. One side wants the blocksize to stay small, around 1 mb, and the other side wants the ... Kurzer Rückblick zum ETF, der Block Size Debatte und was Danny von BTC-ECHO von der Entscheidung der SEC hält. Immer aktuell über Bitcoin/Blockchain und Co. informiert: www.btc-echo.de Wie es ... The highly-charged debates around both Ethereum's potential hardfork and Bitcoin's block size appear different on the surface, but are caused by the same des... A talk on the Bitcoin block size debate and a discussion of arguments for both larger and smaller block sizes give by Leonhard Weese on 18 November, 2015 at Tuspark's Causeway Bay location in Hong ...