Slush Pool to Enable BIP 101 Mining in Support of Bitcoin ...

What is better, joining a XT mining pool or purchasing a 21 bitcoin computer to mine BIP 101 blocks?

What do users do who want to help raise mining BIP 101 blocks but don't have professional mining hardware?
If enough people have the same goal (BIP 101), can't we get a substantial percentage of hashing power?
submitted by dappsWL to btc [link] [comments]

ATTENTION: P2Pool mining pools supporting Bitcoin XT. Fix required to mine BIP 101 blocks. /r/bitcoinxt

ATTENTION: P2Pool mining pools supporting Bitcoin XT. Fix required to mine BIP 101 blocks. /bitcoinxt submitted by BitcoinAll to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

What is better, joining a XT mining pool or purchasing a 21 bitcoin computer to mine BIP 101 blocks? /r/btc

What is better, joining a XT mining pool or purchasing a 21 bitcoin computer to mine BIP 101 blocks? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

My draft for a new /r/btc FAQ explaining the split from /r/Bitcoin to new users

If /btc is going to actually compete with /Bitcoin, it needs to be just as friendly and informative to new users, especially given its position as the “non default” or “breakaway” sub. The current /btc sticky saying "Welcome to the Wiki" doesn't even have any content in it and I feel this is a bit of a wasted opportunity to create an informative resource that new users will see by default and everyone else can link to instead of retyping things over and over about the history and difference between the subs.
Here's what I've written as a starting point. I've done my best to keep it as concise and relevant as possible but in all honesty it is a complicated issue and a short but effective explanation is basically impossible. I hope the community can expand/improve on it further.
Quick bit about me
I got into Bitcoin in October 2013, when /Bitcoin had around 40k subscribers if I remember correctly, so by now I've actually personally experienced a large portion of Bitcoin's history - including the events preceding and since the creation of this sub. I have been an active and popular poster on /Bitcoin for almost all of that time, until the split and my subsequent banning. With the recent censorship fiasco, I'm finding I have to reiterate the same points over and over again to explain to newer users what happened with the /Bitcoin vs /btc split, questions about hard forks, what is likely to happen in the future and so on. So I put a couple of hours into writing this post to save myself the trouble in future.

/btc FAQ - Historical split from /Bitcoin megathread - v0.1

There is a TL:DR; at the bottom, but it is exactly that. If you skip straight to the TL:DR; then don’t expect sympathy when you post questions that have already been covered in the lengthy and detailed main post.

New to Bitcoin?

I am totally new to Bitcoin. What is it? How does it work? Can/should I mine any? Where can I buy some? How do I get more information?
All of these questions are actually really well covered in the /Bitcoin FAQ. Check it out in a new tab here. Once you've got a bit of a handle on the technology as a whole, come back here for the rest of the story.

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

What's the difference between /btc and /Bitcoin? What happened to create two such strongly opposed communities? Why can't I discuss /btc in /Bitcoin?
Historically, the /Bitcoin subreddit was the largest and most active forum for discussing Bitcoin. As Bitcoin grew close to a cap in the number of transactions it could process, known as the 1MB block size limit, the community had differing opinions on the best way to proceed. Note that this upcoming issue was anticipated well ahead of time, with Satoshi's chosen successor to lead the project Gavin Andresen posting about it in mid 2015. Originally, there was quite a broad spread of opinions - some people favoured raising the blocksize to various extents, some people favoured implementing a variety of second layer solutions to Bitcoin, probably most people thought both could be a good idea in one form or another.
This topic was unbelievably popular at the time, taking up almost every spot on the front page of /Bitcoin for weeks on end.
Unfortunately, the head moderator of /Bitcoin - theymos - felt strongly enough about the issue to use his influence to manipulate the debate. His support was for the proposal of existing software (called Bitcoin Core) NOT to raise the blocksize limit past 1MB and instead rely totally on second layer solutions - especially one called Segregated Witness (or SegWit). With some incredibly convoluted logic, he decided that any different implementations of Bitcoin that could potentially raise the limit were effectively equivalent to separate cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Ethereum and thus the block size limit or implement other scaling solutions were off-topic and ban-worthy. At the time the most popular alternative was called Bitcoin XT and was supported by experienced developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who have since both left Bitcoin Core development in frustration at their marginalisation. Theymos claimed that for Bitcoin XT or any other software implementation to be relevant to /Bitcoin required "consensus", which was never well defined, despite it being seemingly impossible for everyone to agree on the merits of a new project if no one was allowed to discuss it in the first place. Anyone who didn't toe the line of his vaguely defined moderation policy was temporarily or permanently banned. There was also manipulation of the community using the following tactics - which can still be seen today:
This created enormous uproar among users, as even many of those in favour of Bitcoin Core thought it was authoritarian to actively suppress this crucial debate. theymos would receive hundreds of downvotes whenever he posted: for example here where he gets -749 for threatening to ban prominent Bitcoin business Coinbase from the subreddit.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Theymos posted a thread which received only 26% upvotes in a sample size of thousands announcing that he did not care if even 90% of users disagreed with his policy, he would not change his opinion or his moderation policy to facilitate the discussion the community wanted to have. His suggested alternative was instead for those users, however many there were, to leave.
Here are Theymos' exact words, as he describes how he intends to continue moderating Bitcoin according to his own personal rules rather than the demands of the vast majority of users, who according to him clearly don't have any "real arguments" or "any brains".
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.
/btc was therefore born in an environment not of voluntary departure but of forced exile.
This forced migration caused two very unfortunate occurrences:
  1. It polarised the debate around Bitcoin scaling. Previously, there was a lot of civil discussion about compromise and people with suggestions from all along the spectrum were working to find the best solution. That was no longer possible when a moderation policy would actively suppress anyone with opinions too different from Theymos. Instead it forced everyone into a "with us or against us" situation, which is why the /btc subreddit has been pushed so far in favour of the idea of a network hard fork (discussed below).
  2. It has distracted Bitcoin from its mission of becoming a useful, global, neutral currency into a war of information. New users often find /Bitcoin and assume it to be the authoritative source of information, only to later discover that a lot of important information or debate has been invisibly removed from their view.
Since then, like any entrenched conflict, things have degenerated somewhat on both sides to name calling and strawman arguments. However, /btc remains committed to permitting free and open debate on all topics and allowing user downvotes to manage any "trolling" (as /Bitcoin used to) instead of automatic shadow-banning or heavy-handed moderator comment deletion (as /Bitcoin does now). Many users in /Bitcoin deny that censorship exists at all (it is difficult to see when anyone pointing out the censorship has their comment automatically hidden by the automoderator) or justify it as necessary removal of "trolls", which at this point now includes thousands upon thousands of current and often long-standing Bitcoin users and community members.
Ongoing censorship is still rampant, partially documented in this post by John Blocke
For another detailed account of this historical sequence of events, see singularity87 s posts here and here.
/btc has a public moderator log as demonstration of its commitment to transparency and the limited use of moderation. /Bitcoin does not.
Why is so much of the discussion in /btc about the censorship in /Bitcoin? Isn't a better solution to create a better community rather than constantly complaining?
There are two answers to this question.
  1. Over time, as /btc grows, conversation will gradually start to incorporate more information about the Bitcoin ecosystem, technology, price etc. Users are encouraged to aid this process by submitting links to relevant articles and up/downvoting on the /new and /rising tab as appropriate. However, /btc was founded effectively as a refuge for confused and angry users banned from /Bitcoin and it still needs to serve that function so at least some discussion of the censorship will probably always persist (unless there is a sudden change of moderation policy in /Bitcoin).
  2. The single largest issue in Bitcoin right now is the current cap on the number of transactions the network can process, known as the blocksize limit. Due to the censorship in /Bitcoin, open debate of the merits of different methods of addressing this problem is impossible. As a result, the censorship of /Bitcoin (historically the most active and important Bitcoin community forum) has become by proxy the single most important topic in Bitcoin, since only by returning to open discussion would there be any hope of reaching agreement on the solution to the block size limit itself. As a topic of such central importance, there is naturally going to be a lot of threads about this until a solution is found. This is simply how Bitcoin works, that at any one time there is one key issue under discussion for lengthy periods of time (previous examples of community "hot topics" include the demise of the original Bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, the rise to a 51% majority hash rate of mining pool and the supposed "unveiling" of Bitcoin's anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto).

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

What is a hard fork? What happens if Bitcoin hard forks?
A network hard fork is when a new block of transactions is published under a new set of rules that only some of the network will accept. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain history of transactions to two separate blockchains of the current state of the network. With any luck, the economic incentive for all users to converge quickly brings everyone together on one side of the fork, but this is not guaranteed especially since there is not a lot of historical precedent for such an event.
A hard fork is necessary to raise the block size limit above its 1MB cap.
Why is /btc generally in favour of a hard fork and /Bitcoin generally against?
According to a lot of users on /Bitcoin - a hard fork can be characterised as an “attack” on the network. The confusion and bad press surrounding a hard fork would likely damage Bitcoin’s price and/or reputation (especially in the short term). They point to the ongoing turmoil with Ethereum as an example of the dangers of a hard fork. Most of /Bitcoin sees the stance of /btc as actively reckless, that pushing for a hard fork creates the following problems:
According to a lot of users on /btc - a hard fork is necessary despite these risks. Most of /btc sees the stance of /Bitcoin as passively reckless, that continuing to limit Bitcoin’s blocksize while remaining inactive creates the following problems:
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is an open-source project founded on the ideal of free market competition (between any/all software projects, currencies, monetary policies, miners, ideas etc.). In one sense, /btc vs /Bitcoin is just another extension of this, although Bitcoiners are also encouraged to keep abreast of the top posts and links on both subreddits. Only those afraid of the truth need to cut off opposing information.
What do Bitcoin developers, businesses, users, miners, nodes etc. think?
There are developers on both sides of the debate, although it is a common argument in /Bitcoin to claim that the majority supports Bitcoin Core. This is true in the sense that Bitcoin Core is the current default and has 421 listed code contributors but misleading because not only are many of those contributors authors of a single tiny change and nothing else but also many major figures like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik have left the project while still being counted as historical contributors.
Businesses including exchanges etc.
A definite vote of confidence is not available from the vast majority of Bitcoin businesses, and wouldn't be binding in any case. The smart decision for most businesses is to support both chains in the event of a fork until the network resolves the issue (which may only be a day or two).
Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin.
Miners and Nodes hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
What do I do if the network hard forks?* Do we end up with two Bitcoins?
Firstly, in the event of a hard fork there is no need to panic. All Bitcoins are copied to both chains in the case of a split, so any Bitcoins you have are safe. HOWEVER, in the event of a fork there will be some period of confusion where it is important to be very careful about how/why you spend your Bitcoins. Hopefully (and most likely) this would not last long - everyone in Bitcoin is motivated to converge into agreement for everyone's benefit as soon as possible - but it's impossible to say for sure.
There isn't a lot of historical data about cryptocurrency hard forks, but one example is alternative cryptocurrency Ethereum that forked into two coins after the events of the DAO and currently exists as two separate chains, ETH (Ethereum) and ETC (Ethereum Classic).
The Ethereum fork is not a good analogy for Bitcoin because its network difficulty target adjusts every single block, so a massive drop in hash rate does not significantly impede its functioning. Bitcoin’s difficult target adjusts only every 2100 blocks - which under usual circumstances takes two weeks but in the event of a hard fork could be a month or more for the smaller chain. It is almost inconceivable that a minority of miners would willingly spend millions of dollars over a month or more purely on principle to maintain a chain that was less secure and processed transactions far slower than the majority chain - even assuming the Bitcoins on this handicapped chain didn't suffer a market crash to close to worthless.
Secondly, a hard fork is less likely to be a traumatic event than it is often portrayed in /Bitcoin:

What Happens Now

How do I check on the current status of opinion? hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
Users are also welcome to engage in anecdotal speculation about community opinion based on their impression of the commentary and activity in /btc and /Bitcoin.
Haven't past attempts to raise the blocksize failed?
There is no time limit or statute of limitations on the number of attempts the community can make to increase the block size and scale Bitcoin. Almost any innovation in the history of mankind required several attempts to get working and this is no different.
The initial attempt called Bitcoin XT never got enough support for a fork because key developer Mike Hearn left out of frustration at trying to talk around all the censorship and community blockading.
The second major attempt called Bitcoin Classic gained massive community momentum until it was suddenly halted by the drastic implementation of censorship by Theymos described above.
The most popular attempt at the moment is called Bitcoin Unlimited.
/btc is neutral and welcoming to any and all projects that want to find a solution to scaling Bitcoin - either on-or off-chain. However, many users are suspicious of Bitcoin Core's approach that involves only SegWit, developed by a private corporation called Blockstream and that has already broken its previous promises in a document known as the Hong Kong Agreement to give the network a block size limit raise client along with Segregated Witness (only the latter was delivered) .
What if the stalemate is irreconcilable and nothing ever happens?
Increasing transaction fees and confirmation times are constantly increasing the pressure to find a scaling solution - leading some to believe that further adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited or a successor scaling client will eventually occur. Bitcoin Core's proposed addition of SegWit is struggling to gain significant support and as it is already the default client (and not censored in /Bitcoin) it is unlikely to suddenly grow any further.
If the stalemate is truly irreconcilable, eventually users frustrated by the cost, time and difficulty of Bitcoin will begin migrating to alternative cryptocurrencies. This is obviously not a desirable outcome for long standing Bitcoin supporters and holders, but cannot be ignored as the inevitable free market resort if Bitcoin remains deadlocked for long enough.


I don’t know anything about Bitcoin. Help me?
What’s the /btc vs /Bitcoin story?
  • Bitcoin is at its transaction capacity and needs to scale to onboard more users
  • The community was discussing different ways to do this until the biased head moderator of /Bitcoin Theymos got involved
  • Theymos, started an authoritarian censorship rampage which culminated in telling 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. /btc is where they went. Here is the thread where it all started. Note the 26% upvoted on the original post, the hundreds of upvotes of community outcry in the comments and the graveyard of [removed] posts further down the chain. Highly recommended reading in its entirety.
  • To this day, /Bitcoin bans all discussion of alternative scaling proposals and /btc
  • Bitcoin is about freedom, and can’t function effectively with either an artificially restricted transaction cap or a main community forum that is so heavily manipulated. This subreddit is the search for solutions to both problems as well as general Bitcoin discussion.
What’s the deal with hard forks?
  • No TL:DR; possible, read the whole post.
What happens now?
  • Node Support Information
  • Miner Support Information
  • Debate continues in /btc, and generally doesn't continue in /Bitcoin - although posts referencing /btc or Bitcoin Unlimited regularly sneak past the moderators because it is such a crucial topic
  • Eventually one side or the other breaks, enough miners/nodes/users get on one side and Bitcoin starts scaling. This may or may not involve a hard fork.
  • If not, fees and average confirmation times continue to rise until users migrate en masse to an altcoin. This is not an imminent danger, as can be seen by the BTC marketcap dominance at its historical levels of 80+% but could change at any time
submitted by Shibinator to btc [link] [comments]

Our BlockStream Saviours and XT Infidels!

Dear Bitcoin community, we (your BlockStream Saviours) working hard to improve Bitcoin by getting rid of XT Infidels!
Here is what we have done so far!
  1. Successful DDOS against XT Nodes, you can see nice drop here:
  2. Successful DDOS against Slush Pool ( Slush, this is what you get for ignoring our memo. For rest of you miner's, pay attention to what happened to Slush. We will let you know which blocks to mine. Keep voting for BIP100. It will soon be ready.
  3. Created “authentic” letter from Satoshi Very proud of this :) Got Gregory Maxwell to bless it! Thanks Gregory, we can always count on you (nice note on headers, pure gold).
  4. Kicked Mike Hearn out of #bitcoin-dev, he was talking too much anyway.. Good Job Wladimir J. Van, you should come join us at BlockStream!
  5. Censored Gavin out bitcoin-dev mailing list :) That was awesome! Unfortunately Evil BitcoinXT Infidels noticed.
  6. Started character assassination against Gavin and Mike Hearn (so far so good).
  7. Started successful censorship campaign at /bitcoin and with our Top Lieutenant Theymos. Theymos, you make us all proud.
  8. Had Theymos teach lesson to BIP101 supporters Theymos, you have our permission to merge pull request 1028. Coinbase, see section #2 (Slush learned their lesson). To make it more clear - We will erase you from Internet!
  9. Almost removed Gavin from Foundation (he refuses to cooperate)...
  10. Halted block-size increase nonsense-madman-talk by starting Scaling Bitcoin Workshop x2. Kudos to our great leader Adam Back for this brilliant idea!
  11. Our Plan is simple!
  12. Our Plan is working!
  13. Please return to /bitcoin and where it is safe and peaceful. We will make you feel comfortable!
  14. Please avoid and /btc at all costs.
Together We Will Succeed!
Your friends at BlockStream. XOXO
submitted by blockstream_fan to btc [link] [comments]

Amanda from The Daily Decrypt here. I'm looking to do a video special on what's going on with BIP 101, BitcoinXT/Bitcoin Unlimited, and potential hard forks. Answers to my questions here would help tremendously. Thanks for your time.

1 - Does Bitcoin Unlimited support BIP 101 natively, or can it be made to do so?
2 - If a Bitcoin Unlimited node sets their max accepted block size to 8MB or above, does that mean they are automatically "supporting" BIP 101?
3 - It looks like XT+BU nodes currently make up almost 13% of the network. Does anything like a fork happen at a certain threshold? If so, what is that percentage?
4 - What does a fork look like, in short?
5 - The block size has been just one contentious issue in Bitcoin. There are certainly more to come. Do you foresee that competing reference clients will be how problems are again solved in the future, a.k.a. vote by node?
6 - Which mining pools have made the switch to either XT or BU already?
7 - What decides what the "main chain" is in Bitcoin -- "hashing power" or node majority? Please explain.
Thanks so much!
-Amanda @TheDailyDecrypt
submitted by The_Daily_Decrypt to btc [link] [comments]

It has taken me a long time, but I finally committed ALL of my resources to BIP 101 - bitcoin xt

I run two full nodes and a small miner. I switched on full node to xt when all of this started, but now I'm fed up. I switched my miner back to slush's pool today and I updated my other node to bitcoinxt. Sometimes it just feels refreshing to do the right thing.
If you want to move your miners to slush's pool and show your support for 8mb blocks (aka: bitcoinxt, BIP 101), set up an account at and use these mining addresses:
stratum+tcp:// - General
stratum+tcp:// - USA
stratum+tcp:// - Europe
Slush is re-enabling BIPB101:
If you want to set up bitcoixt, it's pretty easy to just remove bitcoind and run the binary linked here:
You can find more information about bitcoinxt blocks here:
submitted by secret_bitcoin_login to btc [link] [comments]

The harvesting of passive supporters

This is a theory sketch of a feeling I developed as an observer of both Bitcoin attempt to raise the block size limit, and now the Ethereum hard-fork attempt to recover stolen DAO funds. In these cases two groups arise, one pro and other against the change. Lets call people* in these groups active supporters, and we expect that the side that is going to win is the side with most active supporters. What I argue is, in truth, active supporters are not the deciding players, and the real outcome is decided by the passive supporters.
Passive supporters are those people who are either ignorant of the issue, or don't care (and they are frequently ignorant because they don't care). They represent that 90% majority that doesn't vote on the pools' pools. Those who simply upgrade the software when the auto-upgrades pops up. They are those who activates a switch if they read that they must activate a switch, otherwise they will lose money, and don't question why there is a switch in the first place.
And what side gets to win such a dispute? The side with key people in position to herd and harvest most of the passive supporters. The role of active supporters is not to convince the other side, their role manage to reap the passive supporters, by any means they can. For instance, pro-HF active supporters in Ethereum mining pools managed to get the passive supporters in that pool by voting on what side the pool must take.
The "do nothing" side always begin with a distinct advantage, because this side, in principle, already have all the passive supporters. The side that requires all users to update their clients starts losing. If only the miners are required to update their clients, the disadvantage is smaller, but exists. Of course, for pool user, do nothing may be going with the side the pool took. Thus, pools choosing a side provides the greatest opportunity for reaping passive supporters: they don't have to do nothing, the choices was made for them.
Also, very relevant in Ethereum case, is the default setting of the client, in case of auto-update. Updating a software is not an action perceived as actively taking a political stance, although it can be in case of cryptocurrencies. Many users have their software updated automatically, like Ubuntu's PPA users, and for them, the "do nothing" position is just to let the auto-updater do their job (or manually upgrading, ignorant of the political consequences). Such passive supporters will end up following the "official stance".
After the "do nothing", what seems to be the most influential factor in passive supporters is leadership (particularly important to Chinese, it seems), or probably related, the "official stance". That seemed to be the single reason the Chinese reject the 8 MB block increase fork on Bitcoin (according to a biased account), and probably makes a huge difference when Vitalik goes about speaking for a hard fork. An e-mail allegedly from Satoshi Nakamoto criticizing Bitcoin XT fork made a huge attention, ironically undeserved, because using that name to voice a personal opinion stood against all the culture create by Satoshi Nakamoto himself in Bitcoin's mailing list: that is to value the content, not the author.
It is possible that there is nothing wrong with this state of things, but for me it just doesn't seem to be fair. I think that every such contending decision should be engineered to minimize the role of passive supporters.
Here follows some (probably unrealistic) proposals taking this issue into account:
As I said, some of these proposals may be unrealistic, or very hard to get, or wrong and unfair, but my goal here is to solve the problem, but make people aware of it, that the "passive supporters" are the majority, and consider their role in decision making processes. How fair and just that process really is in this perspective?
(*) In our case, "people" is actually hashrate, but the reasoning follows.
submitted by lcvella to ethereum [link] [comments]

What you need to know about running XT or BU instead of Core, a simple FAQ

Where can i find the software?
Download BitcoinXT
Download Bitcoin Unlimited

Do I have to uninstall Core or install XT/BU in a separate location?
Not at all, just install it where you have currently installed Core.

Will I still have my coins?
Yes, your coins will stay in your wallet. But always keep a backup, no matter what.

What happens if bitcoin forks to a BIP 101 chain?
If you run XT or BU, you will stay on the chain with the most proof of work, i.e the chain where the majority of miners work on securing the blockchain. For BIP 101 to activate, 75% of mining must support BIP 101.
Whatever the case, BIP 101 activating or not, your coins are still safe if you run XT or BU.

I'm not a miner, but I like BIP 101, what's the point of running XT or BU before the fork?
For a fork to be successful and stable, blocks must be able to propagate under the new rules. If you activate your node status at the rest of the network can see that you run a node that will help keep the fork alive and well. It helps with the deadlock situation where everyone is waiting for everyone else before taking action.

I am a miner, and I want to mine BIP 101 blocks, but p2pool has too much variance, what do I do?
Contact your local pool and let them know that you want them to activate BIP 101 mining. The more miners that do, the better chance we have.

I've heard that XT has code that does [insert something bad here], is that true?
If you want to know what is different from Core, you can read all about it here:
If you are a coder you can go to and look at the changes for yourself.

I have a question that isn't listed here..
Then post it here, and I'll add it to the list or expand on one of the answered questions if applicable.
submitted by P2XTPool to btc [link] [comments]

The 75% rule and faked support

So, after January 11 the fork would be triggered if 750 of the last 1000 blocks were BIP 101. Currently, more than 25% of the total hashrate are allocated into pools that are opposing bitcoinXT. Are you expecting that this is somehow going to change during 2016? Because under current conditions and the rules set for the fork to be triggered (disregarding the date), it couldn't realistically take place.
Also, in case that the fork is triggered, and supposing that it's going to happen under the current set rules, there's no way back. It'd happen in two weeks after being triggered even in case support falls bellow 75% of the mining power.
It's not hard to fake support for bitcoinXT. In fact there are already two different projects on GitHub that do exactly that. Nodes that look like XT but act like bitcoin Core (or do nothing) after the fork is triggered.
I was wondering if there's anything on the works to counter this issue of faked support.
please don't kill the messenger. Those are genuine questions and are currently not allowed in /bitcoin.
submitted by GreatGuy_GG to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik finally explains "most common floor" in BIP 100. Also, an idea for how XT can defeat BIP 100.

I x-posted a version of this to /bitcoin which didn't mention XT. In this one I'll include some XT related thoughts at the end
What BIP 100 actually means
Jeff recently broke his silence on how BIP 100 works with a post on the dev mailing list.
To refresh your memory, BIP 100 describes the voting process as
Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.
This caused a lot of confusion because "most common floor" is not a common term.
Jeff clarifies that he means
20th percentile, though there is some argument to take the 'mode' of several tranches he really is proposing a version that just takes the 20th percentile value. This is the version that suffers from a 21% attack, where 21% of miners can bring the limit down to 1 MB from any starting point.
He seems open to splitting the votes into segments and taking the most common one, but it doesn't sound like he has thought it through.
Given the confusion on this issue, I wonder which voting rules all the mining pools supporting BIP 100 imagine they are voting for.
Idea for how XT can reverse BIP 100's momentum
My guess is that BIP 100 is getting more support than BIP 101 because stopping at 32 MB seems more safe than growing to 8 GB. Even though BIP 100's new voting mechanism seems risky, people probably think it's a less risky change than putting us on a course for 8 GB. Many people arguing against BIP 101 just can't seem to emotionally come to terms with the 8 GB number, because they imagine how huge 8 GB would be as a limit right now and it scares them. People are bad at perceiving how much technology can improve in 20 years.
So here's a proposal for those who want XT to win vs. BIP 100: just modify XT to stop at 32 MB, but set the expectation that we'll re-evaluate in 4 years when the 32 MB limit is hit and will increase it again if there were no issues with the increase to 32 MB.
The obvious objection is "but then we'll just have to have this fight again in 4 years! Let's find a permanent solution."
The counterarguments are:
A change in XT to stop and re-evaluate when we hit 32 MB would eliminate the main reason people are supporting BIP 100, and move most of the support to XT.
submitted by go1111111 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Why including BIP 101 into Core is now the conservative approach

I think my original post has been removed from /Bitcoin so I'm posting here:
Both sides of the block size debate make great points and I appreciate the conservative and careful approach the 1MB supporters hold. I tend to agree that we need to be very careful with any changes, but I also recognize that Bitcoin can't achieve global and universal reach with the 1MB block size cap. Not even with sidechains, as the various many sidechains and open asset projects would fill up the 1MB on their without any individuals using Bitcoin.
Times are changing now and thus the risks to taking different paths are changing too. Before XT was released it was reasonable to oppose it on the grounds that it could potentially cause a split of Bitcoin. Today, we’re in a different situation. XT is gaining popularity with 10+% of nodes supporting it, and the second block by the Slush pool already have been mined. Now that BIP 101 is already "in the wild" the higher risk comes from BIP 101 not being implemented in the Core. Inclusion became the conservative and risk averse option in my opinion.
I’m hoping that the highly respected team of 1MB supporting Core developers will be willing to work with the greater Bitcoin community and include BIP 101 into Core even if they feel it’s against their beliefs or professional opinion because we’re already past the point where the potential risk they wanted to prevent could be averted. Or if we're not past the point, we are fast approaching that point of no return. It is not in the interest of any of us to see Bitcoin spilt just to prove a point that we were right to oppose the fork. That would only provide a small satisfaction, but on the grand scale of things would prove to the sceptical outside world that Bitcoin is a failure. We absolutely can't let that happen because Bitcoin is way too valuable to society as a whole.
It’s going to be hard emotionally because nobody wants to seemingly go back on his word, but great man can set aside egos for the greater good. And we’re talking about great minds here like Peter Todd and Nick Szabo. And in reality with the inclusion of BIP 101, they would not be going back on their core principles, as it would ensure Bitcoin’s integrity which always was the goal.
Many conservative Bitcoiners would be more comfortable running the Bitcoin Core software with the careful inclusion of BIP 101 by highly trusted Core developers rather than running Bitcoin XT. Once Core includes BIP 101, it will eliminate the need for the XT software and thus the Core team would retain trust and control of Bitcoin in general.
submitted by ivanraszl to btc [link] [comments]

Summary of Recent Events

Mike Hearn, a long-time bitcoin developer, published an article yesterday claiming that bitcoin had failed, that he had sold all of his bitcoins, and that he will no longer be contributing to the bitcoin space. This story was picked up by Nathaniel Popper at the New York Times, who wrote a nice article summarizing the situation.
Hearn had a lot of valid reasons for frustration, including malicious DoS attacks on Bitcoin XT nodes. However, recent positive developments, possibly catalyzed by Hearn's article, demonstrate that a large number of major stakeholders disagree with Hearn's assessment (more on this below).
Regardless, it's now a day after Hearn's article, and the price has fallen to about $370. This is down from roughly $430 before the article. There has been speculation that investors are selling on fear over the article (although it's always difficult to pin down the cause of a bitcoin price swing).
At the same time, big players have recently joined Bitcoin Classic (which itself has joined Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited as alternative implementations to Bitcoin Core that would allow a block size increase). A recent tally shows 49% of the hash power (a measure of mining power) had joined Classic, along with both Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik as developers. Previously, miners had been slow to back any implementation proposing a block size increase, and Andresen and Garzik had each backed their own separate proposals for a block size increase (BIP 101 and BIP 100, respectively). Major companies standing behind Classic include Coinbase, OKCoin, Bitstamp, Xapo, and a bunch of others.
Bitcoin Classic's momentum may be derived from two key factors.
First, their mission statement asserts that "in the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community". The project's maintainers have already started collecting feedback from various stakeholders using a platform called Although may not be a perfect solution to political infighting, it may be a significant step forward, given the governance issues that have plagued bitcoin (especially over the last six months). It’s also hard to overestimate the value of a transparent decision-making process, in light of the censorship that has become the norm in other forums for community discussion.
Second, they've already made the compromise of forking Core with an immediate block size increase to 2 MB, as a stopgap measure, and they're using to determine the way forward after that.
With many proposals available, the future remains unseen, but one notable development is the support that has been coalescing around BitPay's recent adaptive block size increase proposal, with Gavin Andresen publicly favoring it.
TL;DR: The price appears to have dropped over fear originating from Hearn's declaration of Bitcoin's failure. Nearly simultaneously, Bitcoin Classic has emerged with significant backing from users, miners, developers, and businesses, thus bringing new hope of progress. It appears that this positive news has not yet been priced in.
Disclaimer: This is a personal take on the situation. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell bitcoin as an investment. Bitcoin's price will likely be volatile for some time, and if you view bitcoin as an investment, then it's best to invest only what you can afford to lose.
Edit: formatting; changed a link to an NP link, per reddiquette guidelines.
submitted by 11251442132 to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-07 22:40 PDT

Period: 29.80 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 28052
Rate (per day) 33.52 904.13
Unique Redditors 409 2067
Combined Score 56126 117584

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3835 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" (529 points, 262 comments)
    2. Charlie Shrem: "Oh cmon. @gavinandresen is the reason we are all here today. Stop attacking people, ...." (256 points, 61 comments)
    3. The core developers don't care about you. Let's fire them by hard fork to Bitcoin unlimited! (231 points, 83 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Core Hashrate Below 80% (211 points, 27 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin is an P2P electronic cash system, not digital gold. If Bitcoin's usefulness as cash is undermined, its value will be undermined too." (198 points, 196 comments)
    6. I like these ads (194 points, 25 comments)
    7. "ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator already help more than 5K delayed transactions got confirmed." (142 points, 27 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Unlimited: Over 800 PH/s (128 points, 21 comments)
    9. ViaBTC produces ZERO empty block in the last month. Best in SPV base mining pool. (117 points, 2 comments)
    10. New ATL (All Time Low) For Bitcoin Core Blocks (114 points, 59 comments)
  2. 2876 points, 24 submissions: ydtm
    1. 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? (354 points, 116 comments)
    2. BU-SW parity! 231 vs 231 of the last 1000 blocks! Consensus will always win over censorship! MARKET-BASED blocksize will always win over CENTRALLY-PLANNED blocksize! People want blocksize to be determined by the MARKET - not by Greg Maxwell & his 1.7MB anyone-can-spend SegWit-as-a-soft-fork blocks. (271 points, 66 comments)
    3. The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price! (185 points, 80 comments)
    4. "Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan,, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
    5. "Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander (175 points, 110 comments)
    6. "You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
    7. Blockstream/Core don't care about you. They're repeatedly crippling the network with their DEV-CONTROLLED blocksize. Congestion & delays are now ROUTINE & PREDICTABLE after increased difficulty / time between blocks. Only we can fix the network - using MARKET-CONTROLLED blocksize (Unlimited/Classic) (168 points, 60 comments)
    8. 3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
    9. 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. (143 points, 97 comments)
    10. Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
  3. 2424 points, 31 submissions: realistbtc
    1. Remember this picture ? It was a very strong and cool message from around 2014 . Well, sadly it's not true anymore. But it was universally liked in the Bitcoin space , and probably brought here some of us . I remember even luke-jr reposting it somewhere (oh , the hypocrysis!! ). (249 points, 55 comments)
    2. Emin Gun Sirer on Twitter ' My take is the exact opposite: we are now finding out that Segwit isn't necessary and we can get the same benefits via simpler means. " (248 points, 46 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on Twitter : ' The purpose of a consensus system is to arrive at one outcome. Participating means accepting the result even if you initially disagree. ' (204 points, 56 comments)
    4. enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
    5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter - 'This can't be controversial... can it? - a definition of Bitcoin' (136 points, 38 comments)
    6. adam back on twitter "contentious forks are bad idea for confidence & concept of digital scarcity. wait for the ETFs. profit. mean time deploy segwit & lightning" - no! a corrupt company like blockstream with a washed out ex cypherpunk like adam are what's bad for Bitcoin . (122 points, 115 comments)
    7. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - if you stray from that , you don't get to keep calling it Bitcoin. call it blockstreamcoin, adamcoin, gregcoin, theymoscoin or whatever and go fork off yourself . (112 points, 19 comments)
    8. soon 21 will have to change the scale , because 180 satoshi/KB won't be enough anymore - madness - feel free to send your complaints to greg maxwell CTO of blockstream (112 points, 31 comments)
    9. PSA : if you use a ledger wallet , you risk paying an absurdly high free - see here : 10$ for a 225 bytes 150$ tx - but remember , it's all fine for your elitist and gregonomic friends at blockstream (109 points, 111 comments)
    10. Luke 'the liar' Dashjr : ' My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. ' -- yes , he wrote exactly that !! (96 points, 33 comments)
  4. 2129 points, 43 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. After failing to get 10K bitcoins for stolen NSA exploits, Shadow Brokers post farewell message, dump a cache of Windows hacking tools online (181 points, 23 comments)
    2. Coinbase and the IRS (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter - There is a leadership gap in bitcoin left by technical community members who didn't listen to miners, businesses or users. (117 points, 44 comments)
    4. Blockstream Core developer says you should "pay a $5 fee" to get your transaction to go through! (116 points, 32 comments)
    5. $2.50 transaction FEE paid on $37 transaction, still unconfirmed for 24 hours!! (109 points, 37 comments)
    6. Blockstream shareholder gives a little more insight into the company (107 points, 33 comments)
    7. Finished setting up my Unlimited full node. Took just over 24 hrs to sync with a 5 yr old laptop and standard U.S. connection + $50 1TB hard drive! (96 points, 46 comments)
    8. Matt Corallo/TheBlueMatt leaves Blockstream to go work for Chaincode Labs... is the Blockstream house of cards beginning to crumble? (86 points, 175 comments)
    9. 53,000 transactions in the backlog! (75 points, 79 comments)
    10. Doctor ₿ Goss on Twitter: Spending a year on #segwit instead of coordinating blocksize increase may not have been wise. Money that doesn't work is worthless (70 points, 11 comments)
  5. 1590 points, 9 submissions: parban333
    1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
    2. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. (400 points, 207 comments)
    3. Remember: while the blockstream trolls take Peter R out of context, Peter Todd really think Bitcoin should have a 1%/security tax via inflation. (146 points, 92 comments)
    4. So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
    5. SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
    6. Remember: the manipulative Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, want to fool every newcomer that doesn't know better into thinking that he practically invented Bitcoin. (91 points, 22 comments)
    7. Not only segwit support is laughable at the moment for something targeting 95% adoption, but it's actually diminishing. Wallet devs and people that spent resources implementing that ridiculous contraption must feel a bit silly at the moment.... (83 points, 143 comments)
    8. It's ironic that blockstream's concerns about hard forks security are what's actually caused concerns about hard forks security. (46 points, 5 comments)
    9. The Intercept - "Hidden loopholes allow FBI agents to infiltrate political and religious groups" - Just something to consider, right? (27 points, 2 comments)
  6. 1471 points, 10 submissions: sandakersmann
    1. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." (472 points, 254 comments)
    2. Olivier Janssens on Twitter: "Do you like Bitcoin? Then you like an unlimited block size. The limit was put in place as a temp fix and was never hit before last year." (252 points, 189 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: "Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin, enhancing decentralization" (213 points, 179 comments)
    4. Is Bitcoin Unlimited Headed for Activation? (149 points, 38 comments)
    5. Marius Kjærstad on Twitter: "High fees push real economy out of #Bitcoin and makes price driven by speculation. Result is a lower real economy floor to catch the knife." (132 points, 37 comments)
    6. No Primary Litecoin Pool Will Upgrade to Segwit, Says LTC1BTC's Founder (103 points, 60 comments)
    7. Charlie Shrem: "Bitcoin is been built to appreciate or die. That's how it is. It has to continue to grow. If it doesn't grow then it's just gonna go away." (76 points, 15 comments)
    8. G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (Episode 166) (36 points, 1 comment)
    9. Joseph VaughnPerling on Twitter: "#SegWit on $LTC's safe b/c low TX vol. AnyoneCanSpend TX UTXO unlikely to hit 51% attack cost. On $BTC it'd be insidiously fatal. @SegWit" (21 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Plummets After China Launches "Market Manipulation" Investigations Of Bitcoin Exchanges (17 points, 0 comments)
  7. 1408 points, 7 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. (307 points, 142 comments)
    2. Reality check: today's minor bug caused the pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
    3. Satoshi: "The eventual solution will be to not care how big [block size] gets." (250 points, 75 comments)
    4. Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks at all time high! (143 of last 1000) (191 points, 56 comments)
    6. Censored in bitcoin: "Bitcoin Core hashrate reaches 79.7%" (91 points, 61 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Transaction Fees - All Time (70 points, 18 comments)
  8. 1235 points, 40 submissions: chinawat
    1. Julian Assange just used the bitcoin block number 447506 as a proof of life. (199 points, 42 comments)
    2. "$3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day!" -- Brewster Kahle on Twitter (97 points, 3 comments)
    3. ‘Barclays took my £440,000 and put me through hell’ | Money (76 points, 22 comments)
    4. Venezuelan Police Arrest Eight Bitcoin Miners in Two Weeks, and the Country's Leading Bitcoin Exchange Suspends Operations (52 points, 2 comments)
    5. The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin (46 points, 11 comments)
    6. How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear (44 points, 6 comments)
    7. "The plan (#mBTC units) has been discussed amongst local #Chinese exchanges, & we believe it will appease the regulators, w/ "lower" prices." -- Bobby Lee on Twitter (43 points, 36 comments)
    8. "Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size, but is a one-time drop to 300 kB really the best way?" -- theymos (40 points, 68 comments)
    9. Buy bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. The Race Is On for a Bitcoin ETF (31 points, 14 comments)
  9. 1010 points, 17 submissions: 1and1make5
    1. Last 1000 Blocks - Bitcoin Unlimited overtakes soft-fork-segwit signaling (165 points, 25 comments)
    2. Again: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization - Roger Ver (101 points, 59 comments)
    3. cnLedger on Twitter - "@todu77 Contacted http://BTC.TOP . A different logic was used when dealing w/ (very occasional) empty blc. They'll update to BU only" (94 points, 6 comments)
    4. Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right - Brian Armstrong (93 points, 30 comments)
    5. Last 1000 Blocks - 20% of the Bitcoin mining network supports Bitcoin Unlimited (89 points, 4 comments)
    6. current hashrate: ~100 Ph/s (71 points, 5 comments)
    7. Throwback Thursday: mined their first BU block 1 month ago with ~31 Ph/s, today they have ~149 Ph/s (68 points, 6 comments)
    8. Epicenter Bitcoin 166 - G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (63 points, 50 comments)
    9. Coinbase Obtains the Bitlicense (53 points, 19 comments)
    10. Fun fact (doesn't mean anything): In the last 24 hours more blocks have signaled support for Bitcoin Unlimited than soft-fork-segwit (53 points, 5 comments)
  10. 984 points, 20 submissions: seweso
    1. Bitcoin unlimited is an expression of freedom. And freedom will always be misconstrued by paternalists/statists as something dangerous. (120 points, 64 comments)
    2. My hope for Bitcoin Unlimited is not to force a hardfork upon everyone, but to break through the censorship, to open minds. (106 points, 88 comments)
    3. Core threatening a POW change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (97 points, 58 comments)
    4. "We will run a SegWit release in production by the time [a 2MB hardfork] is released in a version of Bitcoin Core." (94 points, 84 comments)
    5. Blocked by Peter Todd for pointing out he started the propaganda war with his slippery slope video. (92 points, 41 comments)
    6. I can't wait to spend everyone's SegWit funds on a hard-forked >1Mb chain. ~ Seweso (72 points, 72 comments)
    7. BashCo putting his Bitcoin ignorance on display by stating "60,000 #Bitcoin transactions don't just magically appear out of thin air. #spam" (66 points, 12 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core developers discussing and deciding on Bitcoin economics again (47 points, 13 comments)
    9. Reaction to: why-bitcoin-unlimiteds-emergent-consensus-gamble (46 points, 9 comments)
    10. "@seweso Show me an instance where core pushed out a change and cost miners a block reward." ~ I can do that ;) (37 points, 6 comments)
  11. 883 points, 16 submissions: Shock_The_Stream
    1. Emin Gün Sirer: Finally getting to the crux of the battle. LN/Segwit/fee-market are a synonym for "high fees." Nothing about this tech requires high fees. (155 points, 78 comments)
    2. BTC.TOP !! - New Alltime High for BU blocks @199 ! BTC.TOP alone just mined 4 BU blocks within 47 minutes (115 points, 26 comments)
    3. The great halvening of Samson's Segwit Pool: Mission accomplished! 1 yr: 12.50%, 6 month: 11.10%, 1 month: 7.83%, 1week: 6.67%, 4 days: 6% (107 points, 56 comments)
    4. Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ... (107 points, 45 comments)
    5. BS of the week by Rusty Russell: "If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin" (102 points, 97 comments)
    6. Slush pool: Incredible bad luck for the Bitcoin Unlimited voters (43 points, 26 comments)
    7. The Bitfury Attack (43 points, 38 comments)
    8. 799! Jiang Zhuo'er teared down this wall! (40 points, 13 comments)
    9. Did Slush just stop mining segwit with the 'don't care' voters? (39 points, 36 comments)
    10. Fortune favours the bold: BTC.TOP with 300% luck today (30 points, 2 comments)
  12. 754 points, 10 submissions: AQuentson
    1. Price Shoots Up as Miners Checkmate and Bitcoin Unlimited Surpasses Segwit. (113 points, 28 comments)
    2. One Transaction Will Cost $400 if Bitcoin Hits $10,000 According to Jameson Lopp (104 points, 39 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Developer: Satoshi's Design Doesn't Work (100 points, 78 comments)
    4. Wow! Had no idea the BitcoinMarkets subreddit is completely censored. (90 points, 29 comments)
    5. F2Pool Will Not Upgrade Its Bitcoin Pool to Segwit "Anytime Soon" (89 points, 21 comments)
    6. The Bitcoin Market Needs Big Blocks, Says Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool (82 points, 21 comments)
    7. Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoins Stuck in Transaction Backlog (72 points, 8 comments)
    8. ViaBTC's Hashrate Increases to 12 Percent (58 points, 2 comments)
    9. “The protocol debate is not my priority." - Jihan Wu, Bitmain's Founder (24 points, 13 comments)
    10. Wow! Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoin is Stuck, Can't Move - What Happens if no Block is Found in One Hour (as has happened before) Will Bitcoin Literally Break Down? (22 points, 14 comments)
  13. 744 points, 10 submissions: BobsBurgers3Bitcoin
    1. Bitcoin Unlimited 1.0.0 has been released (274 points, 130 comments)
    2. Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" (260 points, 123 comments)
    3. 35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents (74 points, 18 comments)
    4. Former Fed Employee Fined $5,000 for Using Computer for Bitcoin (37 points, 5 comments)
    5. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (26 points, 0 comments)
    6. Bitcoin is 'a great hedge against the system' and could be the new gold (18 points, 1 comment)
    7. Bitcoin Will Change Money Like the Internet Changed Video (15 points, 0 comments)
    8. Is Warren Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin? (14 points, 3 comments)
    9. Bitseed Review – A Plug & Play Full Bitcoin Node (13 points, 2 comments)
    10. Bitcoin is soaring (and Business Insider does not change the title of the almost identical article published 3 weeks ago by the same author) (13 points, 1 comment)
  14. 732 points, 10 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
    2. "Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
    3. In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
    4. Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
    5. luke-jr defines "using bitcoin" as running a full node. Dictates that the cost of moving money ( a transaction) should exceed "using bitcoin". Hah (38 points, 17 comments)
    6. If it's not activating that is a strong evidence that the claims of it being dire were and continue to be without substance. nullc (36 points, 23 comments)
    7. I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
    8. "The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
    9. At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
    10. The flawed mind of jstolfi (13 points, 17 comments)
  15. 708 points, 7 submissions: knight222
    1. BTC.TOP operator: “We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.” (241 points, 252 comments)
    2. For those who missed it, this is how the hardfork with Bitcoin Unlimited will happen. (173 points, 79 comments)
    3. Blocks mined with Bitcoin Unlimited reaching 18% (133 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Unlimited is less than 1% away from outpacing Segwit for the last 1000 blocks mined (90 points, 44 comments)
    5. BU nodes peaked in the last days (28 points, 6 comments)
    6. Blockstream never tried to compromise but they will (too late). This is why: (22 points, 4 comments)
    7. BTC.TOP is having a good day (21 points, 6 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Adrian-X (3622 points, 821 comments)
  2. H0dl (3157 points, 563 comments)
  3. Bitcoinopoly (2732 points, 345 comments)
  4. knight222 (2319 points, 361 comments)
  5. MeTheImaginaryWizard (2043 points, 429 comments)
  6. Ant-n (1818 points, 387 comments)
  7. todu (1756 points, 265 comments)
  8. seweso (1742 points, 328 comments)
  9. awemany (1690 points, 401 comments)
  10. Shock_The_Stream (1647 points, 217 comments)
  11. Helvetian616 (1578 points, 206 comments)
  12. Egon_1 (1478 points, 162 comments)
  13. realistbtc (1299 points, 95 comments)
  14. BitcoinIsTehFuture (1231 points, 139 comments)
  15. LovelyDay (1226 points, 196 comments)
  16. thcymos (1172 points, 117 comments)
  17. BeijingBitcoins (1098 points, 58 comments)
  18. Yheymos (1061 points, 69 comments)
  19. steb2k (1058 points, 238 comments)
  20. ydtm (987 points, 132 comments)
  21. dontcensormebro2 (975 points, 106 comments)
  22. chinawat (972 points, 223 comments)
  23. increaseblocks (934 points, 73 comments)
  24. segregatedwitness (921 points, 101 comments)
  25. Annapurna317 (874 points, 146 comments)
  26. DaSpawn (817 points, 162 comments)
  27. insette (808 points, 91 comments)
  28. TanksAblazment (803 points, 150 comments)
  29. blockstreamcoin (787 points, 133 comments)
  30. MeatsackMescalero (774 points, 95 comments)
  31. satoshis_sockpuppet (745 points, 126 comments)
  32. BitcoinXio (739 points, 50 comments)
  33. jstolfi (734 points, 183 comments)
  34. singularity87 (720 points, 90 comments)
  35. Richy_T (704 points, 163 comments)
  36. redlightsaber (690 points, 138 comments)
  37. Leithm (686 points, 74 comments)
  38. ErdoganTalk (668 points, 252 comments)
  39. BitcoinPrepper (665 points, 89 comments)
  40. reddaxx (664 points, 105 comments)
  41. r1q2 (660 points, 110 comments)
  42. papabitcoin (653 points, 79 comments)
  43. 2ndEntropy (632 points, 76 comments)
  44. FormerlyEarlyAdopter (608 points, 92 comments)
  45. Coolsource (595 points, 116 comments)
  46. Peter__R (589 points, 43 comments)
  47. timepad (570 points, 62 comments)
  48. Rawlsdeep (564 points, 109 comments)
  49. themgp (560 points, 46 comments)
  50. ForkiusMaximus (558 points, 89 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
  2. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" by Egon_1 (529 points, 262 comments)
  3. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." by sandakersmann (472 points, 254 comments)
  4. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. by parban333 (400 points, 207 comments)
  5. 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? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
  6. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. by BeijingBitcoins (307 points, 142 comments)
  7. Massive censorship on "/bitcoin" continues by BitcoinIsTehFuture (296 points, 123 comments)
  8. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "You can talk about anything in BTC and it won't be auto deleted" by BitcoinXio (291 points, 69 comments)
  9. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks exceed Core for first time, 232 vs. 231 of last 1,000 by DNVirtual (282 points, 84 comments)
  10. As relevant as it's always been by iopq (276 points, 15 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  2. 123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  3. 117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
  4. 117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
  5. 113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
  6. 106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  7. 98 points: lon102guy's comment in loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  8. 97 points: bigboi2468's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
  9. 92 points: vbuterin's comment in [Mark Friedenbach] There is a reason we are generally up in arms about "abusive" data-on-blockchain proposals: it is because we see the potential of this tech!
  10. 89 points: Peter__R's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Bitcoin News Digest, Dec 9th

Bitcoin World Sceptical About Claims That Wright Is Satoshi
Well duh, as if we haven't gone through this several times already. The last tweet in the article sums it up pretty nicely: should we even care who Satoshi is? Obviously, he doesn't want himself to be revealed and even if he does, it won't change a thing. But here we have several news outlets trying to make another sensation out of it.
Bitcoin Price Heading Due East
Bitcoin Grows While The Dollar Faces Price Corrections
Both outlets are predicting potential growth, with the latter being more optimistic about it.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong: BIP 101 is the Best Proposal We've Seen So Far
Coinbase endorses the BIP 101 (a proposal to increase the maximum blocksize for Bitcoin from 1MB to 8MB), following 7 other companies which have done the same. But can they really compete with a number of major mining pools voting strongly for an alternative solution, which leaves the decision regarding the blocksize limit to the miners. I think not, but what do you think?
Do you guys like this? I could do this every day!
submitted by ThatInvestorGuy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Consensus will always be difficult. Unanimity, impossible. Innovate anyway.

I was reading through a recent thread where someone asserted that XT had created an unnecessary schism in the community. The following was my response, and I'd like to expound on this idea a bit.
"It's not clear to me that the schism is unnecessary. Jack Welch created divisions within GE with the express purpose of putting other divisions "out of business."
He didn't do that to harm the existing groups (why would he, they were making a lot of money). He did it because he realized that success can be a prison, and leadership of successful organizations with a lot at stake can become overly cautious, which stifles innovation. So to counter that tendency, he created an environment of cooperative competition.
Create a new group with the incentive to try new ideas, figure out which ideas work and which ones don't, and then roll the successful changes back into the main branch.
That was possible because GE's divisions had strong management teams who understood the purpose and the benefits of the exercise. Innovating on a high-value platform is risky, but slowing innovation is risky too. Cooperative competition can provide a solution, but only if the 'cooperation' part works."
There are many constituencies within the Bitcoin ecosystem - merchants, consumers, banks/exchanges, miners, developers, traders, et al. Some of their interests overlap, and some do not, so conflict will always be present.
The development constituency is by far the smallest, but it holds a tremendous amount of power over decision-making because there are far fewer people in the world qualified and experienced enough to understand and manage the evolution of a complex and high-value network like Bitcoin than there are people qualified to build and run exchanges, set up mining rigs and pools, or operate a wallet. And even with all of that expertise and a cautious approach, they're still going to make mistakes - potentially mistakes that could cost large numbers of people large amounts of money.
So the natural competing interests of the larger constituencies and the amazing success of Bitcoin thus far, combine to put a tremendous amount of pressure on this small group, and I think that pressure is starting to show.
Ideally, Bitcoin's development function would run as a meritocracy that is able to represent a variety of competing ideas, evaluate those ideas based on technical merit, risk, fair treatment of conflicting interests, robust testing, consensus, and competitive advantage, and then communicate those ideas and the objective criteria for deciding between them to the larger Bitcoin world.
In reality, because human beings are involved, there are many ways to fall short of that ideal, starting with agreeing upon the definitions of the evaluation criteria I just listed (or whether those are even the right criteria) and so we find ourselves in the situation we have with BIP 101 and XT - an experiment which could have worked as something like Welch's managed evolutionary model, but didn't.
I don't pretend to know all of the factors that lead to this situation being what it is today, but I think it's evident that regardless of which side 'wins,' the community as a whole loses something valuable because of the acrimony that's being directed towards scarce and valuable developers. At what point do a meaningful number of them decide that they have better things they could be doing?
Core seems like it's stuck in a no-win scenario. If it's too liberal in adopting changes that will please some constituencies (but not others), the risk of unanticipated negative impacts to the ecosystem might grow. If it's too conservative, then the platform might stagnate. And whatever they choose to do, there will be thousands of spectators loudly and often rudely demonstrating their support or displeasure. With all of the outside noise, I'm surprised they actually find time to get much coding done at all.
Faced with that scenario, I can understand why developers would only want to move forward with non-controversial changes or changes with near universal support, but it's hard for me to imagine that any really innovative idea is going to meet that standard.
If you agree that Core is stuck in the scenario described above, how do you think they could get unstuck? Do you think there's a way to balance caution with innovation other than pushing most innovation to third party platforms?
submitted by BadLibertarian to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT vs Bitcoin Core Scorecard

I thought it would be interesting to measure support of Bitcoin XT compared to Bitcoin Core nine days after Bitcoin XT was published on Github.
The only mined blocks using Bitcoin XT are by Slush's pool. Out of last 1000 blocks 4 were mined using Bitcoin XT.
937 nodes out of 6771 are using Bitcoin XT the rest are versions of Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin QT.
19.7% of mined blocks have a marker in the coinbase supporting 8 MB blocks but only 0.4% support XT.
BIP 101 is supported by CEOs of BitPay,, KnCMiner,, Xapo and Bitgo but they did not express a preference for Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin XT.
Will keep up to date results at bitcoin XT ELI5.
submitted by BitcoinNewsMagazine to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

EB94 – Gavin Andresen: On The Blocksize And Bitcoin's Governance Bitcoin 101. A Beginner's Guide, Part 3 How to install Bitcoin Core wallet in any Linux distribution Bitcoin Wallet Recovery what is a Bitcoin brain wallet

F2Pool, the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool, maintains that changing its code to allow bigger blocks through BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is not an option.. Wang Chun, the operator of the China-based pool controlling some 20 percent of hashing power, dismissed the idea of an exponential growth rate of the maximum block size for 20 years leading to 8-gigabyte blocks. Bitcoin mining pools have, as expected, demonstrated their opposition to Bitcoin XT through their ‘tagging’ of mined blocks. }}”’Bitcoin XT”’ was a fork of [[Bitcoin Core]] created by [[Mike Hearn]] in 2014. Originally designed to introduce alternative P2P rules, it later gained significant notoriety and support after its adoption of [[BIP 0101BIP 101]] without community support in 2015, giving it importance in the [[block size limit controversy]].<ref name ... Slush Pool, the Czech mining pool has introduced BIP 101 mining for miners, enabling them to vote for introduction of BItcoin XT. Read more It has been little over a week since Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen included Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 101 (BIP 101) into the alternative Bitcoin implementation Bitcoin XT. BIP 101 is designed to create a hard fork in the blockchain to allow for blocks of up to 8 megabytes, doubling every two years. Despite a major uproar ...

[index] [20190] [37448] [31190] [20500] [29276] [22090] [27162] [15816] [24404] [33221]

EB94 – Gavin Andresen: On The Blocksize And Bitcoin's Governance

Bitcoin 101 - Fun with Brain Wallets (Making and Playing With Them) ... How To Make A Secure BIP 38 Encrypted Bitcoin Paper Wallet - TUTORIAL - Duration: 13:38. MrJayBusch 118,662 views. 13:38 ... We cover everything from the current blocksize debate to the nature of forks to how decisions will be made in Bitcoin XT. Topics covered included: - MIT Digital Currency Initiative - The way Gavin ... Building on Bitcoin conference Lisbon, 3-4 July 2018 Xavier Lavayssière: Regulatory strategies. bitcoin price chart, bitcoin pool, bitcoin pris, bitcoin profit calculator, bitcoin poker, bitcoin paypal, bitcoin paper wallet, bitcoin preev, bitcoin program, p vs np bitcoin, bitcoin miner .p ... Bitcoin 101 - Elliptic Curve Cryptography - Part 4 - Generating the Public Key (in Python) ... Continuing the ITN with Charles and Pool Operators TCE 93 - Duration: 1:01:25. The Cardano Effect ...