User:Gavinandresen - Bitcoin Wiki

You can call you a Bitcoiner if you know/can explain these terms...

03/Jan/2009
10 Minutes
10,000 BTC Pizza
2016 Blocks
21 Million
210,000 Blocks
51% Attack
Address
Altcoin
Antonopoulos
Asic
Asic Boost
Base58
Batching
Bech32
Bit
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)
Bitcoin SV
Bitmain
Block
Block height
Block reward
Blockchain
Blockexplorer
Bloom Filter
Brain Wallet
Buidl
Change Address
Child pays for parent (CPFP)
Coinbase (not the exchange)
CoinJoin
Coinmarketcap (CMC)
Colored Coin
Confirmation
Consensus
Custodial Wallet
Craig Wright
David Kleinman
Difficulty
Difficulty adjustment
Difficulty Target
Dogecoin
Dorian Nakamoto
Double spend
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)
Ethereum
Faketoshi
Fork
Full Node
Gavin Andresen
Genesis Block
Getting goxed
Halving
Hard Fork
Hardware Wallet
Hash
Hashing
Hierarchical Deterministic (HD) Wallet
Hodl
Hot Wallet
Initial Coin Offering (ICO)
Initial Exchange Offering (IEO)
Ledger
Light Node
Lightning
Litecoin
Locktime
Mainnet
Malleability
Master Private Key
Master Public Key
Master Seed
mBTC
Mempool
Merkle Tree
Mining
Mining Farm
Mining Pool
Mixing
MtGox
Multisig
Nonce
Not your keys,...
Opcode
Orphan block
P2PKH
P2SH
Paper Wallet
Peers
Pieter Wuille
Premining
Private key
Proof of Stake (PoS)
Proof of Work (PoW)
Pruning
Public key
Pump'n'Dump
Replace by Fee (RBF)
Ripemd160
Roger Ver
sat
Satoshi Nakamoto
Schnorr Signatures
Script
Segregated Witness (Segwit)
Sha256
Shitcoin
Sidechain
Signature
Signing
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV)
Smart Contract
Soft Fork
Stratum
Syncing
Testnet
Transaction
Transaction Fees
TransactionId (Txid)
Trezor
User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)
Utxo
Wallet Import Format (WIF)
Watch-Only Address
Whitepaper
List obviously not complete. Suggestions appreciated.
Refs:
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-glossary https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgo7FCCPuylVk4luP3JAgVw https://www.youtube.com/useaantonop
submitted by PolaT1x to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Did you know that LISK uses Schnorr signature-based Ed25519 scheme which is more secure, much faster, more scalable than secp256k1 which is used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stratis

Schnorr signatures have been praised by Bitcoin developers for a while Adam Back admitted it was more secure
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=511074.msg5727641#msg5727641
And it is much faster (scalable for verifying hundred thousands of transactions per second)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.0
DJB and friends claim that with their ed25519 curve (the "ed" is for Edwards) and careful implementation they can do batch verification of 70,000+ signatures per second on a cheap quad-core Intel Westmere chip, which is now several generations old. Given advances in CPUs over time, it seems likely that in the very near future the cited software will be capable of verifying many hundreds of thousands of signatures per second even if you keep the core count constant. But core counts are not constant - it seems likely that in 10 years or so 24-32 core chips will be standard even on consumer desktops. At that point a million signatures per second or more doesn't sound unreasonable.
Gavin Andresen, the former Bitcoin Chief Scientist want to support it in Bitcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2jw5pm/im_gavin_andresen_chief_scientist_at_the_bitcoin/clfp3xj/
Bitcoin developers discussed to include it https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/212
However, it is still in wishlist https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork_wishlist
Ed25519 is used in Tahoe-FS, one of most respected crypto project https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000069.html
LISK is IoT friendly
The good feature of Schnorr signature is that by design it does not require lot of computations on the signer side. Therefore, you can use it even on a computationally weak platform (think of a smart card or RFID), or on a platform with no hardware support for multiple precision arithmetic.
Advantages of Schnorr signatures
According to David Harding, Schnorr signatures can bring many benefits
Smaller multisig transactions
Slightly smaller for all transactions
Plausible deniability for multisig
Plausible deniability of authorized parties using a third-party organizer (which doesn't need to be trusted with private keys), it's possible to prevent signers from knowing whether their private key is part of the set of signing keys.
Theoretical better security properties: Also, the ed25519 page linked above describes several ways it is resistant to side-channel attacks, which can allow hardware wallets to operate safely in less secure environments.
Faster signature verification: it likely takes fewer CPU cycles to verify an ed25519 Schnorr signature than a secp256k1 ECDSA signature.
Multi-crypto multisig: with two (slightly) different cryptosystems to choose from, high-security users can create 2-of-2 multisig pubkey scripts that require both ECDSA and Schnorr signatures, so their bitcoins can't be stolen if only one cryptosystem is broken.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/34288/what-are-the-implications-of-schnorr-signatures
Scalable multisig transactions
The magic of Schnorr signatures is most evident in their ability to aggregate signatures from multiple inputs into a single one to be validated for every individual transactions. The scaling implications of this are obvious: aggregation allows for non-trivial savings in terms of transmission, validation & storage for every peer on the network. The chart below illustrates the historical impact a switch to Schnorr signatures would have had in terms of space savings on the blockchain. (Alex B.) Infamous malleability is non-issue in LISK Provably no inherent signature malleability, while ECDSA has a known malleability, and lacks a proof that no other forms exist. Note that Witness Segregation already makes signature malleability not result in transaction malleability, however. https://www.elementsproject.org/elements/schnorr-signatures/
Bitcoin has malleability bugs
submitted by Corinne1992 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

"I currently wear the lead developer hat" - Gavin Andresen

Software projects need leaders. There are times decisions must be made. I want to emphasize it's not picking the best decision 100% of the time that's key. It's the ability to make a decision.
Possibly the most cherished aspect of "Bitcoin" is decentralization. It's a powerful concept, because it ensures a degree of fairness for all participants as no entity can easily co-opt and/or corrupt the situation. So we recognize decentralization as important, but I warn against thinking it's the end all, be all solution to everything. It isn't. It doesn't work in every case. Even in Evolution we see clear winners, decisions being made. Some genes win while others are abandoned. Everything doesn't remain equal. Similarly, completely decentralized development of some project, whether a company or a software application, doesn't work with precisely equal peers. There must be some hierarchy for progress to be made. Otherwise, what happens when a disagreement on a point comes up? With equal peers there are only two possibilities: stall everything, or fork/separate. For a multi-billion dollar project like Bitcoin Cash, clearly neither of those happening is desirable.
Not everyone entered the community at the same time nor followed developments closely, so let me recap some history.
Most know Satoshi led the project from the outset, but not everyone realizes Gavin Andresen led it for probably its most critical growth stage (the time between pennies to $10). During this time key, fundamental functionality was built in, with bugs fixed and improvements made along the way. As is inevitable disagreement among volunteer developers broke out to varying degree from time to time. One of the biggest was over precisely how to implement P2SH. Good points could be found on different sides. However, in not too much time Gavin put his foot down and said "this is how it's going to be." And, that's how it was (and still is). Gavin was what's called a benevolent dictator. The situation was handled in short order and Bitcoin has been fine. It wasn't about ego or a "power trip". In fact, Gavin never wanted a lead role, but reluctantly accepted when Satoshi requested it of him. Gavin recognized that, for the overall good of the project, some authority was needed, to end debate and put everyone on the same page. We all push together, rather than in separate directions or alone.
Keep in mind, having an agreed upon software thought leader (as I'd call it) doen't mean not decentralized. Nobody can control miners, nor force users to run software. However, that small addition of limited power over one of the power groups in Bitcoin (software devs) can make things run so much better, and possibly be the only way to make things run at all.
The latest drama to unfold in the Bitcoin Cash community seems to be over a post by BCH dev deadalnix in which he hints at taking a firm leadership-like action on an issue. I sincerely applaud and thank him. I recognize it's not about power or ego, but about caring about the health of the project and being smart enough to recognize the futility of perpetual equal authority. However, it looks like this isn't sitting well with at least one other community participant as this post referencing Craig Wright shows.
So I wake up to this drama and sigh, feeling compelled to make this post and implore my fellow community members to take heed to these words. I nominate Amaury Séchet (deadalnix) to wear the lead developer hat, until such time as he chooses to step back (as Gavin eventually did), or someone else makes the case why they should take it over. My choice is based on track record. He seems well qualified. For those unaware, without his stepping up and the user confidence in his abilities Bitcoin Cash might not exist. As I recently commented, not all devs are equal.
You can disagree with my nomination, but please don't disagree that we need a software lead.
submitted by cryptos4pz to btc [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 GHash.io 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?
Developers
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).
Users
Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin.
Miners and Nodes
Coin.dance 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?
Coin.dance 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.

TL:DR;

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]

I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took *longer* than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened *faster* than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.

Centralization is a double-edged sword.
So far, centralization (and intertia, and laziness, and caution) has been favoring Blockstream.
But if and when a congestion crisis comes, then the tide is gonna turn pretty quickly - and Blockstream's monopoly in terms of "code running on the network" is gonna evaporate quicker than anyone expected.
How will this happen?
Like this:
Bitcoin is going to go into a crisis - not just the current agonizing slow-motion swamp of centralized fascist governance, but a real-time honking red alert involving a clogged-up network, with people freaking out screaming from the rooftops that millions of dollars in transactions are in limbo due to some pointless fucked-up 1 MB "blocksize limit".
And at that point, people are going to get rid of the damn piece of broken cripple-code, immediately.
End of story.
Slow to crumble, fast to collapse
Up till now, the Bitcoin governance crisis has been like slowly sinking into a swamp of quicksand.
But once a real-time congestion crisis actually hits (and online forums become dominated by posts screaming "my transaction is stuck in limbo!!!"), then all the previous bullshit and bloviating from economic idiots about "fee markets" and "soft hard forks" or whatever other nonsense will be instantly forgotten.
And at that point, there will be only 2 things that can happen:
You don't need Blockstream - they need you
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
Eventually, we are going to remember what vote-with-your-CPU consensus looks like
Remember all those hours you wasted on reddit?
Remember all that time you wasted in some hidden downvoted sub-thread debating with some snarky little toxic troll who'd wandered over from a censored Milgram experiment forum full of brainwashed circlejerkers and foot-stomping fascists whose only adrenaline rush and power trip in life had evidently been when they would run around bloviating gibberish like "fee markets!" or "Austrian!" to the self-selected bunch of ignorant submissive sycophants who hadn't been banned from r\bitcoin yet?
Well, when the real crisis hits, all that trivial online drama isn't going to matter any more.
When the inevitable congestion crisis finally comes, it's only going to take a couple of mining pools plus a couple of exchanges to make a simple life-or-death business decision to un-install Blockstream's artificially crippled code and instead install code that has actually been upgraded to deal with the reality of mining and the marketplace - and then we're all going to see what actual vote-with-your-CPU consensus really looks like (instead of vote-with-your-sockpuppet pseudo-consensus on Reddit).
This upgraded code could be Classic, or Unlimited, or even a modded version Core - it doesn't really matter.
Code is code and money is money, and when push comes to shove, investors and miners aren't going to give a damn what some overpaid economic idiot from Blockstream said at some meeting in Hong Kong once, or what some fascist poisonous astroturfing shill-bot posted a million times on Reddit.
Things usually move slow in Bitcoin-land - except when they move fast
For an example of how fast the tide can turn, just look at a couple of major events from the past two days:
(1) Coinbase is suddenly saying that:
Of course the good devs are flocking to Ethereum now.
Any smart dev can see from a mile away that it would be suicide to try to contribute to Core/Blockstream - Blockstream don't want any new coders or new ideas, they are insular and insecure and they feel downright threatened by new coders with fresh ideas.
They've shown this over and over again, eg:
(2) AntPool is suddenly throwing down the gauntlet, saying they won't do SegWit unless and until they get a hard fork first.
AntPool represents a pretty big chunk of hashrate - so all it's gonna take is another big chunk of hashrate to make the same practical business decision as AntPool (to serve Bitcoin users, instead of serving Blockstream) - and boom! - Blockstream loses their stranglehold on the miners.
Devs don't like dicatorships
Blockstream is too jack-booted lock-step to ever attract any more new dev talent.
This is because good devs are very independent-minded: they can smell a dicatorial organization from a mile away, and so no good dev in their right mind (who might actually have some interesting new ideas that could help Bitcoin) would ever go near Blockstream and its toxic group-think culture.
And so Blockstream will just continue to stagnate under Gregory Maxwell's oppressive "leadership":
Blockstream has backed themselves into a corner
At this point, people are starting to realize that Blockstream is a led by desperate and incompetent dead-enders.
(There are some great coders over there such as Pieter Wuille - and Greg Maxwell is also a great Bitcoin coder, but he is toxic as a "leader".)
Blockstream can't do capacity planning, they can't do threat assessment, they can't innovate, they can't prioritize, and they can't communicate.
In the end, they're only destroying themselves - by censoring debate, and ostracizing existing innovators (eg, Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen) - and scaring away potential new innovators.
Remember, Blockstream != Bitcoin
It's important to remember that Blockstream cannot destroy Bitcoin - any more than Mt Gox could.
Once Blockstream is thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Bitcoin community and the media, as "the company that almost strangled the Bitcoin network by trying to force blocks to be smaller than the average web page" - it's gonna be time for honey-badger jokes all over again.
Blockstream's gargantuan conflicts-of-interest will be their downfall
Blockstream is funded by insurance giant AXA - a company whose CEO is the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group. (He's scheduled to move from CEO of AXA to CEO of HSBC soon. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.)
AXA doesn't even want cryptocurrency to succeed anyways, because half of the 1 trillion dollars of so-called "assets" on their fraudulent balance sheet is actually nothing more than toxic debt-backed worthless derivatives garbage. (AXA has more derivatives than any other insurance company.)
In other words, AXA's balance sheet will be exposed as worthless and the company will become insolvent (just like Lehman Brothers and AIG did in 2008) once real money like Bitcoin actually becomes dominant in the world economy - which will "uber" and knock down the whole teetering $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino.
Hmm... AIG... a giant insurance group whose alleged "assets" turned out to be just a worthless pile of toxic debt-backed derivatives on the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat, AIG who triggered the 2008 financial near-meltdown... Who does AIG remind me of... Oh yeah AXA... So let's put AXA in charge of paying for Bitcoin development! What could possibly go wrong?!?
Blockstream's owners HATE Bitcoin
Never forget:
This is the probably the most gigantic CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the history of economics. And it's something to think about, as we sit here wondering for years why Blockstream is not only failing to scale Bitcoin - but it's also actively trying to SABOTAGE anyone ELSE who tries to scale Bitcoin as well.
So, be patient - and optimistic
Viewed from one perspective, the fact that this blocksize battle has dragged on for years can be very depressing.
But, viewed from another perspective, the fact that it's still going on is positive - because, for example, nobody really dares to say anymore that "blocks should be 1 MB" - since repeated studies have shown that the current hardware and infrastructure could easily handle 3-4 MB blocks, and Core/Blockstream's own precious SegWit soft-fork is going to need 3-4 MB blocks anyways.
Plus, the only "strengths" that Blockstream had on its side actually turn out to be pretty weak upon closer scrutiny (money from investors like AXA who hate cryptocurrency, censorship from domain squatters who only know how to destroy communities, snark from sockpuppets who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag on uncensored forums).
In fact, if you were part of Blockstream, you'd be pretty demoralized that a rag-tag bunch of big-blocks supporters has been chipping away at you for the past few years, creating new forums, creating new coins, creating new products and services, exposing the economic ignorance of small-block dead-enders - and all the while, Blockstream hasn't been able to deliver on any of its so-called scaling roadmap.
If it hadn't been for a few historical accidents (cheap energy behind the Great Firewall of China, plus the other "linguistic" firewall that has prevented many people in the Chinese-speaking community from seeing how much of the community actually rejects Blockstream, plus the other accidental fact that bigger blocks involve generalizing Bitcoin, which mathematically happens to require a hard fork), then Blockstream would not have been able to control Bitcoin development as long as it has.
Yeah, they have done routine maintenance stuff and efficiency upgrades, like rewriting libsecp256k, which is great, and much appreciated - and Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork) - but the network also needs some simple, safe scaling.
And the network is going to get simple, safe scaling - whenever it decides that it really, really wants it.
And there's nothing that Blockstream can do to block that.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Did you know that LISK uses Schnorr signature-based Ed25519 scheme which is more secure, much faster, more scalable than secp256k1 which is used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stratis

Schnorr signatures have been praised by Bitcoin developers for a while
Adam Back admitted it was more secure
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=511074.msg5727641#msg5727641
And it is much faster (scalable for verifying hundred thousands of transactions per second)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.0
DJB and friends claim that with their ed25519 curve (the "ed" is for Edwards) and careful implementation they can do batch verification of 70,000+ signatures per second on a cheap quad-core Intel Westmere chip, which is now several generations old. Given advances in CPUs over time, it seems likely that in the very near future the cited software will be capable of verifying many hundreds of thousands of signatures per second even if you keep the core count constant. But core counts are not constant - it seems likely that in 10 years or so 24-32 core chips will be standard even on consumer desktops. At that point a million signatures per second or more doesn't sound unreasonable.
Gavin Andresen, the former Bitcoin Chief Scientist want to support it in Bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2jw5pm/im_gavin_andresen_chief_scientist_at_the_bitcoin/clfp3xj/
Bitcoin developers discussed to include it https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/212
However, it is still in wishlist https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork_wishlist
Ed25519 is used in Tahoe-FS, one of most respected crypto project https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000069.html
LISK is IoT friendly
The good feature of Schnorr signature is that by design it does not require lot of computations on the signer side. Therefore, you can use it even on a computationally weak platform (think of a smart card or RFID), or on a platform with no hardware support for multiple precision arithmetic.
Advantages of Schnorr signatures
According to David Harding, Schnorr signatures can bring many benefits
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/34288/what-are-the-implications-of-schnorr-signatures
Scalable multisig transactions
The magic of Schnorr signatures is most evident in their ability to aggregate signatures from multiple inputs into a single one to be validated for every individual transactions. The scaling implications of this are obvious: aggregation allows for non-trivial savings in terms of transmission, validation & storage for every peer on the network. The chart below illustrates the historical impact a switch to Schnorr signatures would have had in terms of space savings on the blockchain. (Alex B.)
Infamous malleability is non-issue in LISK
Provably no inherent signature malleability, while ECDSA has a known malleability, and lacks a proof that no other forms exist. Note that Witness Segregation already makes signature malleability not result in transaction malleability, however. https://www.elementsproject.org/elements/schnorr-signatures/
Bitcoin has malleability bugs
submitted by pcdinh to Lisk [link] [comments]

/r/Bitcoin has many discussions over whether the Bitcoin block size limit should be raised.

Tonight, on your special edition of SubredditDrama we will debate on the block size limit and watch the arguments unfold. Grab your popcorn and welcome to Sub Reddit Drama!
*cue intro music*

First, some context for the uninitiated.

Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, which processes transactions in blocks. Typically, these take about 10 minutes to process, and this is how transaction verification works.
Currently, the limit on the size of each block is 1 megabyte, to prevent people from create gigantic blocks that would take a lot of data to store in the long run. Because of this, only so many transactions can be processed in a block.
Recently, there has been a proposal to increase this size to 20 MB. This would make the maximum size of each block larger, which could make the network able to process more transactions in a shorter amount of time.
Many people have their opinions, and everyone knows that duty calls.

Now, for the drama...

First, someone expresses their support for the block size increase. This starts a few subthreads of drama. A debate is started over what the current transaction limit is. Arguments are had over whether Bitcoin is scalable also come out of that.
In another subthread, a few want to remove the limit altogether, while some want to let the free market sort it out.
Arguments over whether Lightning would help or increase centralization also occur.
After the break, we'll put the butter in your bowl.
Okay, we're back, dramanauts, and we have more drama from another (related) thread. On Twitter, Nick Szabo made this tweet. It has been linked on /Bitcoin, and this is good, because people are arguing already. Here is this thread on whether Satoshi is a god. A small slapfight occurs over whether Gavin Anderseen is in charge.
In a third thread, someone says that most of the developers disagree about a larger block size.
Additionally, in this thread, another user points out that some arguments were based on economic fallacies. Someone else in a different subthread points out that reddit's hivemind was saying "because Satoshi said so". Users disagree.
Some argue over Gavin's activity. Arguments over how this will affect Tor, a way to privately connect, by tunneling through a few nodes (I believe) also arise.
This is getting argued to the death, and I'm running out of things to say about it.
I think this is all the drama I can find for now, but the mailing list has additional drama. This is definitely a developing story though.
We'll see you next time on Sub Reddit Drama!
submitted by justcool393 to SubredditDrama [link] [comments]

An email from a concerned friend who got into Bitcoin in 2010 and successfully mined blocks using their CPUs. I have similar concerns, hence the repost here (with permission).

Hey X and Y
Are you two aware that the Bitcoin Core devs are making big changes to the bitcoin network which fundamentally change the economics of bitcoin and what you can and can't do with bitcoin?
If people continue to use the Bitcoin Core software many of the things that we know work well in the bitcoin network, are going to be discarded and replaced with other things which may or may not work.
It's quite upsetting for me. I've watched Bitcoin make it this far and now it's like it's being torn apart in front of my eyes, largely by Blockstream and Viacoin employees/founders who develop Bitcoin Core. These people have a serious conflict of interest and they are clearly acting on that conflict.
At this point the only core devs I trust are: Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn. Of those 3, both Gavin and Hearn have been ostracized out of Bitcoin Core development and I think Jeff will be soon too as he clearly is pushing back against the agenda of the problematic Bitcoin Core devs (eg Peter Todd, Luke JR and G Maxwell).
One example of the destructive things the Core devs are doing is this:
Peter Todd is pushing for something called Full-RBF. 0-conf transactions are an essential part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. They are used widely by many businesses (eg ShapeShift.io). There are risks associated with accepting 0-conf transactions, but those risks can be mitigated and managed. Full-RBF will vastly decrease the usefulness of 0-conf transactions. Peter Todd is literally adding code to Bitcoin Core that damages Bitcoin. If they achieve their goal of getting a significant number of miners using Bitcoin Core with Full-RBF mode enabled, it will no longer be practical to use Bitcoin in stores to pay for goods as you will be forced to wait for 1 confirmation. People will be forced into off-chain solutions (eg Coinbase.com offchain transactions). It will no longer be safe for the shop keeper to accept bitcoin transactions from SPV wallets (eg Breadwallet).
With Full RBF, 0-conf transactions will become something you can only rely on for: * trading with trustworthy people (eg friends, family and businesses you have an established relationship with) * signalling that your transaction has entered the network (not that it will likely confirm).
Todd has already successfully committed code to Bitcoin Core's master branch that performs something called Opt-in Full-RBF. This Opt-in Full-RBF isn't as bad as Full RBF, but it has a whole bunch of really negative repercussions. The main ones being: * it makes Bitcoin more complicated for novice users to understand * it increases the complexity of wallets * it makes it more likely that novice users will be scammed
Also: the term "opt-in" is very (and probably deliberately) misleading. The sender of the transaction opts-in to creating a transaction, but the receiver does not opt-in. Wallet devs will also be forced to make changes to deal with this new transaction type if Bitcoin Core continues to be used. They will be forced to add weird messages to their wallet software which say something like: "You have received an RBF transaction. Unlike normal transactions, RBF transactions can be more easily double spent. If you are unsure what this means, you should wait for at least 1 confirmation."
In-fact. That lengthy message doesn't even give the user all the info they need to know. It doesn't explain why they might have received the RBF transaction: * are they under attack? * is the sender trying to bump their transaction fee? * is the senders wallet software misconfigured?
It adds a layer of complexity which is completely unnecessary.
Another thing they are doing is unnecessarily keeping the maximum block size capped at 1MiB. 1MiB was always widely understood to be a temporary limit to stop the blockchain getting too bloated in the early days of the currency. It kept the network cheap to run and easy to join. Keeping it stuck this low now that we are hitting that limit regularly is going to cause what Jeff Garzik refers to as an "Economic Change Event" (ECE). You can read about it here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011973.html
This ECE is going to materialize as absolute havoc on the network; probably within the next 6 months. There will be many frustrated users on account of stuck/delayed transactions. It will become far more expensive to send transactions. Many people will sell their Bitcoin holdings causing the price to drop. Many people will simply not understand what is happening and out of fear and uncertainty they will sell off their holdings. Businesses that relied on cheap transactions will close up shop. Mainstream media will [correctly] portray Bitcoin as a failed attempt at creating a global currency. The growth of Bitcoin will be stumped.
I've heard probably every single reasoned argument related to the blocksize debate and it is abundantly obvious to me that it's perfectly safe to increase the maximum blocksize.
Anyway. I wanted to let you guys know what I think about what's going on. I'd be interested to know if you share any of my concerns or if this is the first you're hearing about these issues.
If you agree with me I strongly urge you to avoid using the Bitcoin Core software and advise others not to use it either. There are 3 decent full-node alternatives to choose from and soon there will soon be a forth: btcd: https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/btcd Bitcoin Unlimited: http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/ Bitcoin XT: https://bitcoinxt.software/ Toshi: https://toshi.io/ [Warning: BETA software]
Also, you should avoid the following heavily censored websites: bitcoin.org reddit.com/bitcoin bitcointalk.org
There are decent replacements for those sites/pages where you can freely discuss these issues without being banned/muted: https://www.bitcoin.com https://forum.bitcoin.com/ https://reddit.com/btc https://bitco.in/forum/ https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/
Hope you are both well, Z
submitted by itsgremlin to btc [link] [comments]

Deconstructing the Blockchain to Approach Physical Limits

arXiv:1810.08092
Date: 2018-11-08
Author(s): Vivek Bagaria, Sreeram Kannan, David Tse, Giulia Fanti, Pramod Viswanath

Link to Paper


Abstract
Transaction throughput, confirmation latency and confirmation reliability are fundamental performance measures of any blockchain system in addition to its security. In a decentralized setting, these measures are limited by two underlying physical network attributes: communication capacity and speed-of-light propagation delay. Existing systems operate far away from these physical limits. In this work we introduce Prism, a new proof-of-work blockchain protocol, which can achieve 1) security against up to 50% adversarial hashing power; 2) optimal throughput up to the capacity C of the network; 3) confirmation latency for honest transactions proportional to the propagation delay D, with confirmation error probability exponentially small in CD ; 4) eventual total ordering of all transactions. Our approach to the design of this protocol is based on deconstructing the blockchain into its basic functionalities and systematically scaling up these functionalities to approach their physical limits.

References
  1. Ethereum Wiki proof of stake faqs: Grinding attacks. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQs.
  2. David Aldous and Jim Fill. Reversible markov chains and random walks on graphs, 2002.
  3. Gavin Andresen. Weak block thoughts... bitcoin-dev. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html.
  4. Vivek Bagaria, Giulia Fanti, Sreeram Kannan, David Tse, and Pramod Viswanath. Prism++: a throughput-latency-security-incentive optimal proof of stake blockchain algorithm. In Working paper, 2018.
  5. Vitalik Buterin. On slow and fast block times, 2015. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/09/14/on-slow-and-fast-block-times/.
  6. Alex de Vries. Bitcoin’s growing energy problem. Joule, 2(5):801–805, 2018.
  7. C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings, pages 1–10, Sept 2013.
  8. Ittay Eyal, Adem Efe Gencer, Emin G¨un Sirer, and Robbert Van Renesse. Bitcoinng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In NSDI, pages 45–59, 2016.
  9. Ittay Eyal and Emin G¨un Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Communications of the ACM, 61(7):95–102, 2018.
  10. Juan Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Nikos Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 281–310. Springer, 2015.
  11. Dina Katabi, Mark Handley, and Charlie Rohrs. Congestion control for high bandwidth-delay product networks. ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review, 32(4):89–102, 2002.
  12. Aggelos Kiayias, Alexander Russell, Bernardo David, and Roman Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
  13. Uri Klarman, Soumya Basu, Aleksandar Kuzmanovic, and Emin G¨un Sirer. bloxroute: A scalable trustless blockchain distribution network whitepaper.
  14. Yoad Lewenberg, Yoram Bachrach, Yonatan Sompolinsky, Aviv Zohar, and Jeffrey S Rosenschein. Bitcoin mining pools: A cooperative game theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 919–927. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2015.
  15. Yoad Lewenberg, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Inclusive block chain protocols. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 528–547. Springer, 2015.
  16. Chenxing Li, Peilun Li, Wei Xu, Fan Long, and Andrew Chi-chih Yao. Scaling nakamoto consensus to thousands of transactions per second. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03870, 2018.
  17. Wenting Li, S´ebastien Andreina, Jens-Matthias Bohli, and Ghassan Karame. Securing proof-of-stake blockchain protocols. In Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology, pages 297–315. Springer, 2017.
  18. Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008.
  19. Christopher Natoli and Vincent Gramoli. The balance attack against proof-of-work blockchains: The r3 testbed as an example. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.09426, 2016.
  20. Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 2016 IEEE European Symposium on, pages 305–320. IEEE, 2016.
  21. Rafael Pass, Lior Seeman, and Abhi Shelat. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 643–673. Springer, 2017.
  22. Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. ACM, 2017.
  23. Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Hybrid consensus: Efficient consensus in the permissionless model. In LIPIcs-Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, volume 91. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2017.
  24. Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Thunderella: Blockchains with optimistic instant confirmation. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 3–33. Springer, 2018.
  25. Peter R Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
  26. Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 515–532. Springer, 2016.
  27. Y Sompolinsky and A Zohar. Phantom: A scalable blockdag protocol, 2018.
  28. Yonatan Sompolinsky, Yoad Lewenberg, and Aviv Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2016:1159, 2016.
  29. Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar. Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 507–527. Springer, 2015.
  30. Statoshi. Bandwidth usage. https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/bandwidth-usage.
  31. TierNolan. Decoupling transactions and pow. Bitcoin Forum. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2015-11-07 to 2018-12-03 19:07 PDT

Period: 1122.63 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 177195
Rate (per day) 0.89 157.49
Unique Redditors 537 19498
Combined Score 606295 1044009

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 28637 points, 50 submissions: Egon_1
    1. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (4810 points, 506 comments)
    2. WSJ: "[bitcoin core] fees have reached an average cost of about $30 per transaction. That makes bitcoin virtually unusable for all but very large transactions. The Bitcoin Cash crowd is just trying to offer a solution to that problem." (1305 points, 338 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder that the LiteCoin ($36) founder sold 100% of his coins as it ran up to $300 while wearing a HODL shirt for video interviews. (1192 points, 293 comments)
    4. Rick Falkvinge:"Fun fact: I am aware of a truckload of companies currently in the process of converting from Bitcoin Legacy to #Bitcoin Cash. I am aware of zero (0) companies going the other direction." (657 points, 226 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin.com wallet now displays "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" balances. Should satisfy everyone, right? ;)" (627 points, 444 comments)
    6. GDAX: "We will open the BCH-BTC Order Book on Wednesday, January 17 at 9:00 am PST." (618 points, 112 comments)
    7. Stephen (BitPay CEO):"a typical #bitcoin transaction costs $1.80 now, >200k unconfirmed transactions, time for a hard fork to larger blocks ... 8mb please" (544 points, 113 comments)
    8. Erik Voorhees: "Changing Bitcoin's proof-of-work to prevent miners from mining is the most absurd and reckless thing I've heard in the scaling debate." (539 points, 171 comments)
    9. Erik Voorhees: "Fellow Bitcoiners, are you ever going to realize how problematic these fees are getting? Avg fees now over $40 per tx. A year ago avg fee was $4. A year prior, $0.40. Growing faster than price, and exponentially with usage. We just spent $4800 to move 15 BTC in one TX." (539 points, 147 comments)
    10. BitPay CEO: “If people can’t engage in commerce, it’s hard to imagine why they’d want to store their money in Bitcoin in the first place” (537 points, 133 comments)
  2. 26883 points, 56 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. I'm Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com and world's first investor in Bitcoin startups. AMA (978 points, 932 comments)
    2. The pro Bitcoin Cash video from CNBC made it to the very front page of Yahoo.com! (858 points, 189 comments)
    3. I (Roger Ver) will be doing an AMA on Monday Dec 18th starting at 10AM EST on /BTC because /Bitcoin is completely censored. (826 points, 412 comments)
    4. Reminder: Blockstream and Core got 100% of everything they asked for. (807 points, 332 comments)
    5. I'm giving away $100 each of BCH and BTC on live TV tomorrow by displaying the private key. Guess why? (738 points, 827 comments)
    6. How wrong were they? More than 2 years ago the CEO of Lightning Labs said LN would be ready in less than 6 months (695 points, 275 comments)
    7. To the Censorship loving tyrants in /Bitcoin, don't Say Bitcoin.com didn't warn you! "In the unlikely event that the 2MB block size increase portion of Segwit2x fails to activate, Bitcoin.com will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively." (672 points, 363 comments)
    8. Sign the Petition for Clemency for Ross Ulbricht, Serving Double Life for a Website (663 points, 227 comments)
    9. I just bet 1,000 BTC (~$4M USD) that Segwit 2X coin will have more value than Segwit 1x coin. (644 points, 398 comments)
    10. If you think consumers are going to throw away $100’s (and soon $1000’s) on transaction fees to open up a payment channel on the Lightning network, you are delusional. (599 points, 219 comments)
  3. 12737 points, 26 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Censored! Youtube removes Roger Ver's video on "The effects of Censorship and Propaganda upon Bitcoin" (1002 points, 296 comments)
    2. CNBC is waking up (886 points, 144 comments)
    3. Despite massing brigading from bitcoin and core, @Bitcoin twitter account has gained 50k subscribers since it came out in support of BCH last week. (627 points, 197 comments)
    4. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (619 points, 113 comments)
    5. Bitfinex defines Bitcoin Cash as the coin that fulfills the original promise of p2p cash, a bitcoin upgrade that is ready to scale and sound money! #Winning (599 points, 164 comments)
    6. Wouldn't wanna be this shopper. (581 points, 124 comments)
    7. GDAX enabling EUBCH trading pair next week. #winning 🎆 (572 points, 66 comments)
    8. Thank to this community's effort, Forbes has corrected Kyle's Torpey's LN article to clarify LTC tx fees is much higher than BCH. Now let's ask for 1 more correction: Bitcoin cash is not Bcash. Links in comments. (508 points, 173 comments)
    9. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning labs calls out Blockstream on letting users tinker with LN that's neither safe nor ready for mainnet. (490 points, 266 comments)
    10. The $2000 tip for Bitcoin ABC dev shows we don't need blockstream to pay our developers, we can do community funding through tippr! (463 points, 131 comments)
  4. 12410 points, 23 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. /bitcoin is censoring the NIST report that says "Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain" and Bitcoin Core is not. If you have to censor to get people to believe you, then you have lost. (855 points, 496 comments)
    2. Free_Ross on Twitter: "ALL charges of murder-for-hire vs. Ross are now dropped. After almost 5 years, gov't has moved to dismiss final MD indictment based on evidence from corrupt agent now in prison." (759 points, 211 comments)
    3. Someone hacked the account todu which was a mod here to point users to /bitcoin (732 points, 259 comments)
    4. Former /cryptocurrency mod: "I used to be a mod of cryptocurrency until they kicked me out. Now, that sub, is controlled all by mods with accounts less than 7 months old!" (724 points, 214 comments)
    5. Congrats: /btc has reached 150,000 subscribers! (696 points, 356 comments)
    6. Twitter continues to go downhill - flags @Bitcoin account as ‘temporarily restricted due to unusual activity’ (635 points, 216 comments)
    7. There is a huge edit war on Wikipedia where trolls like the user "Jtbobwaysf" are trying very hard to inject the word "bcash" into Bitcoin Cash pages and reverting/editing other pages that speak factually poorly on topics such as Lightning Network, Segwit, etc. (622 points, 148 comments)
    8. What /bitcoin mods desperately don't want you to see! (601 points, 104 comments)
    9. /btc is trending on reddit today, congrats everyone! (586 points, 18 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (579 points, 334 comments)
  5. 11766 points, 16 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." (3417 points, 463 comments)
    2. Dear Reddit Admins: We need to talk about /Bitcoin (1342 points, 280 comments)
    3. Paid for this whisky with Bitcoin Cash! Ginza bar becomes third Tokyo retail establishment to accept BCC (747 points, 60 comments)
    4. Samson Mow says Bitcoin isn't for people earning less than $2 a day. With average transaction fees now at $27.20, is Bitcoin even for people earning less than $100 a day? (659 points, 160 comments)
    5. Protip: If you are new to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, you really should read the document that started it all, the Bitcoin whitepaper [PDF] (642 points, 69 comments)
    6. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (641 points, 121 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin in a nutshell (531 points, 68 comments)
    8. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (483 points, 168 comments)
    9. Shit, they're on to us (449 points, 65 comments)
    10. "Am I so out of touch?" (443 points, 164 comments)
  6. 9301 points, 2 submissions: censorship_notifier
    1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. (8585 points, 1166 comments)
    2. New anti-censorship bot for /bitcoin (716 points, 345 comments)
  7. 7980 points, 16 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. No Neo I'm trying to tell you ... (706 points, 77 comments)
    2. Blockstream is falling apart - Greg Maxwell resigns - Blockstream takes down team page in a hurry to reorg team - Adam Back must be worried (675 points, 492 comments)
    3. * Ripple is not mineable (it is a centralized private blockchain run by banks) (622 points, 254 comments)
    4. rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains (578 points, 188 comments)
    5. Blockstream investor emails leaked - shows Blockstream motivation to steal transaction fees from miners and pay to Liquid sidechain customers (539 points, 250 comments)
    6. Fixed - Bitcoin Cash moving money far better. SegWitCoin moving money with high fees and slow confirmation times! (532 points, 105 comments)
    7. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (505 points, 59 comments)
    8. "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO (498 points, 143 comments)
    9. Coinbase comes through and does the correct thing and adds clarification on the upcoming Segwit2x Fork (454 points, 194 comments)
    10. Core trolls have hard decisions to make (437 points, 140 comments)
  8. 7772 points, 1 submission: PedanticPendant
    1. The idiocracy of bitcoin (7772 points, 750 comments)
  9. 7763 points, 13 submissions: jessquit
    1. You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction (1378 points, 386 comments)
    2. There never was a "scaling problem." The only problem is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale." (772 points, 419 comments)
    3. Please stop saying "Increase the block size" (660 points, 449 comments)
    4. [PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (622 points, 215 comments)
    5. Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (587 points, 586 comments)
    6. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (541 points, 345 comments)
    7. Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (501 points, 104 comments)
    8. This sub is under major attack (494 points, 319 comments)
    9. There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 169 comments)
    10. Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (459 points, 404 comments)
  10. 7400 points, 16 submissions: Windowly
    1. "If BCH hashpower > BTC, I'll start referring to it as just 'Bitcoin' :" ~ Gavin on twitter (778 points, 238 comments)
    2. You want to go grab a coffee?? (642 points, 413 comments)
    3. "I guess my idea of "freedom from corrupt banks" didn't include transaction fees that forced 99% of the world's population to keep using banks."~Erik Voorhees (603 points, 122 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin needs multiple clients and independent developer groups. There were 0-days in Microsoft Windows for two decades despite billions spent on development. Cut new teams some slack as they ramp up." ~Cornell Professor and Bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer (506 points, 91 comments)
    5. "With recent developments, I'm putting all available dev resources to retool my software for #Bitcoin Cash. I suspect I'm far from alone."~Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party) (493 points, 134 comments)
    6. "We've tested Bitcoin Cash vs Lightning Network and... LN feels so unnecessary and over-complicated. Also, still more expensive than Bitcoin Cash fees - and that's not taking into account the $3 fees each way you open or close a $50 channel. Also two different balances? Confusing" ~ HandCash (461 points, 252 comments)
    7. That Awkward Moment. . . . (429 points, 129 comments)
    8. "There was an entire mall in 2013 to 2015 in Berlin that accepted Bitcoin. This stopped when fees rose. There was wide adoption once. Fees kill use"~Dr. Craig S. Wright (424 points, 150 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash finally released on Open Bazaar! (420 points, 36 comments)
    10. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (413 points, 177 comments)
  11. 6980 points, 1 submission: boomtnt46
    1. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method (6980 points, 1178 comments)
  12. 6385 points, 9 submissions: rdar1999
    1. South Koreans sign petition (100k signatures) to reject ban proposal and 30k signatures asking to FIRE the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister for market manipulation. Crypto is winning!! (1863 points, 117 comments)
    2. BREAKING NEWS: South Korean Government confirms NO CRYPTO BAN. What they will do is to enforce regulations, anti money laundering task force, anti market manipulation, the usual stuff. (1085 points, 51 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder: Vitalik "I consider BCH a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name." (794 points, 181 comments)
    4. Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (562 points, 262 comments)
    5. GDAX: Bitcoin Cash Launch Retrospective -- trades were halted after 3 minutes because THE STASH DRIED OUT DUE TO AN AVALANCHE OF BUY ORDERS (485 points, 162 comments)
    6. While Jamie Dimon is shutting down your accounts, Russia’s largest State Bank is about to open cryptocurrency exchange In europe (439 points, 38 comments)
    7. Flippening: blockexplorer.com says: "We have made the decision to support the only bitcoin fork with a postive utility momentum, which is Bitcoin Cash.(...) We will not add future support for the Blockstream fork of bitcoin ("Bitcoin Legacy"), and will be deprecating it entirely " (428 points, 110 comments)
    8. National Institute of Standards and Technology confirm: "Bitcoin Core (BTC) is a fork and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the real Bitcoin" p.43 para 8.1.2 (372 points, 115 comments)
    9. TABGATE==> the astroturfing/hired shills scandal. Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls. Just read! (357 points, 271 comments)
  13. 6162 points, 7 submissions: normal_rc
    1. Legacy Bitcoin tries to buy a cup of coffee (2305 points, 499 comments)
    2. WARNING: Brutal scam. Guy buys a Ledger Nano wallet on Ebay, and it steals all his cryptocurrency ($34,000, which is his life's savings). (1479 points, 522 comments)
    3. How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC. (589 points, 220 comments)
    4. Cryptocurrency usually automatically downvotes any pro-BCH thread into oblivion. But I got my CoinText.io post to trend to #3 on their front page, by simply not saying "Bitcoin Cash". Proof that people would love BCH if they kept an open mind. (542 points, 202 comments)
    5. Tor Project can accept small donations again, thanks to Bitcoin Cash. (458 points, 35 comments)
    6. 100,000+ Merchants Start Accepting Bitcoin Cash. More than 100,000 BitPay merchants are now accepting Bitcoin Cash with the option seemingly automatically turned on for all of them. (416 points, 108 comments)
    7. Bitpay announcement: Electron Cash wallet now fully supports Bitpay BIP70 payment invoices for Bitcoin Cash. (373 points, 37 comments)
  14. 6023 points, 12 submissions: BitcoinIsTehFuture
    1. “Graphene” is a new Bitcoin block propagation technology that is 10x more efficient than Core’s “Compact Blocks”! Created by: Gavin Andresen, A. Pinar Ozisik, George Bissias, Amir Houmansadr, Brian Neil Levine. (717 points, 224 comments)
    2. Just so you guys know: Ethereum just had another successful hardfork network upgrade. Blockstream is wrong when they say you cannot hard fork to improve things. (655 points, 398 comments)
    3. Western Union vs. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash (625 points, 102 comments)
    4. This was an orchestrated attack. (574 points, 373 comments)
    5. It's called "Bitcoin Cash". The term "Bcash" is a social attack run by bitcoin. Not joking. Here is the full explanation, with proof. (567 points, 310 comments)
    6. On a reply I made in bitcoin that had over 350 upvotes, I was first somehow blocked from being able to reply on bitcoin and then actually banned when I edited my comment to state that I was blocked from replying. (502 points, 99 comments)
    7. The /bitconnect subreddit just got set to private! Bitconnect experienced a 90% drop, from over $300 down to $26! The scam has gone belly up at last! (447 points, 168 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core Dev "Luke-jr" is asked why he is interested in Bitcoin. This is one of the main people in charge of Bitcoin right now. (405 points, 383 comments)
    9. I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (401 points, 166 comments)
    10. #NOTX (390 points, 56 comments)
  15. 5329 points, 1 submission: 11111101000
    1. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase (5329 points, 1019 comments)
  16. 5147 points, 2 submissions: peptocurrency
    1. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. (4748 points, 635 comments)
    2. Dear Bitcoin: You're right. BTC has been attacked. (399 points, 107 comments)
  17. 5098 points, 9 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Starbucks CEO Wants Crypto. Considering All Currencies Except Bitcoin Core (BTC): "It is not a currency today nor will it be in the future” (820 points, 218 comments)
    2. Roger Ver: "Dear @reddit, [...] I'll pay you $100,000 USD if you simply appoint a moderator to /Bitcoin who supports free speech." (804 points, 424 comments)
    3. Hundreds of botted accounts mixed with some real ones simultaneously post "Bitcoin Cash is Trash" on twitter. Blockstream reaching sheer desperation status. (719 points, 281 comments)
    4. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! (591 points, 115 comments)
    5. ProtonMail asking for community assistance to enable Bitcoin Cash payments (538 points, 86 comments)
    6. WooCommerce brings Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to its 380,000 online retailers. (474 points, 98 comments)
    7. A Bitcoin Entrepreneur Jonathan Hamel knowingly misleads a Canadian Parliamentary committee to smear Bitcoin Cash (BCH). More Lawlessness from Bitcoin/Lightning (399 points, 193 comments)
    8. Largest Sports Gambling Site in the World, Bovada, now Accepts BCH. Billions of dollars in transactions a year (388 points, 60 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash support on OpenBazaar now live (365 points, 43 comments)
  18. 4698 points, 7 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1420 points, 433 comments)
    2. President of SBI Holdings: "The vision of the original Bitcoin white paper written by Satoshi Nakamoto calls for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. That is a powerful vision, and SBI Group will devote resources to enable a future world where Bitcoin Cash is used globally for daily payments." (843 points, 81 comments)
    3. They used to use Bitcoin... (738 points, 176 comments)
    4. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s (494 points, 433 comments)
    5. CEO of Bitcoin.com Roger Ver challenges Samson Mow to a debate once again, will Samson refuse again? The reason small blockers do not debate and need censorship is because they know their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. (426 points, 208 comments)
    6. Update from BitGo: "Due to strong customer interest BitGo will enable full support of Bitcoin Cash" (407 points, 25 comments)
    7. BitPay CEO hints at possible Bitcoin Cash acceptance: "We do listen to our customers and for quite some time their number 1 complaint has been the high fees and slow confirmation times. We really don't like to pre-announce things though. Things move fast and plans can change at the last minute. " (370 points, 73 comments)
  19. 4339 points, 6 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Government: "Cryptocurrencies are too risky." Also government: "Buy lottery tickets." (1296 points, 139 comments)
    2. Death of a Scamcoin: Bitconnect's front page screenshotted moments before they went private, showing panic, anger, and lots of ill-advised investment claims, several claiming to have lost over $100k (948 points, 309 comments)
    3. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY (730 points, 349 comments)
    4. Archive.org has received over twice as many donations ($4800) in Bitcoincash as compared to BTC. This is how we win. (552 points, 157 comments)
    5. Segwhat? Gavin Andresen has developed a new block propagation algorithm able to compress the block down to 1/10th of the size of a Compact Block (Core's technology) using bloom filters called GRAPHENE. 10 times larger blocks, no size increase! 1mb 10mb, 8mb - 80mb, etc. (413 points, 181 comments)
    6. Remember Ross Ulbricht: Dread Pirate Roberts and the Silk Road experiment (400 points, 217 comments)
  20. 3746 points, 8 submissions: knight222
    1. PSA: /bitcoin IS UNDER ATTACK (761 points, 260 comments)
    2. /btc is trending! (528 points, 63 comments)
    3. Bitstamp To Launch Bitcoin Cash Trading (487 points, 80 comments)
    4. Mycelium.com on Twitter: "We support whatever will allow bitcoin to remain censorship resistant. For now that's only possible with bigger blocks." (442 points, 39 comments)
    5. CBS is referring the new chain as "Bitcoin Cash" and the old chain as "Bitcoin Classic". Ahah (421 points, 121 comments)
    6. Bitcoin cash (BCH) price could lead to bitcoin "death spiral" - Quartz (375 points, 55 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash just destroyed the narrative of a contentious hard fork. There is nothing contentious with free choice. (369 points, 114 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash support expected in the next Mycelium release! (363 points, 84 comments)
  21. 3550 points, 6 submissions: singularity87
    1. I am stepping down as a moderator of btc and exiting the bitcoin community and entering the Ethereum community. (1110 points, 482 comments)
    2. Now that the debate is over, lets finally make some progress forward. We are starting a marketing fund to expand Bitcoin Cash adoption. (722 points, 211 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash Logo Animation GIF. Feel free to use. (562 points, 83 comments)
    4. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. (440 points, 270 comments)
    5. Now that REAL consensus is forming, be ready for Core to offer a 2MB hardfork as a last ditch effort to retain their power. DO NOT GIVE IN! (363 points, 179 comments)
    6. btc now has ~50% of the active users of Bitcoin. At this rate btc will soon be the dominant bitcoin subreddit. (353 points, 55 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (17415 points, 1759 comments)
  2. H0dl (8425 points, 1127 comments)
  3. knight222 (7888 points, 810 comments)
  4. ForkiusMaximus (7755 points, 700 comments)
  5. MemoryDealers (7539 points, 197 comments)
  6. tippr (7348 points, 2740 comments)
  7. Ant-n (7224 points, 965 comments)
  8. BeijingBitcoins (6072 points, 459 comments)
  9. BitcoinXio (5984 points, 320 comments)
  10. BitcoinIsTehFuture (5845 points, 516 comments)
  11. imaginary_username (5762 points, 471 comments)
  12. Adrian-X (5748 points, 1069 comments)
  13. LexGrom (5224 points, 1592 comments)
  14. cryptorebel (4869 points, 464 comments)
  15. Egon_1 (4769 points, 368 comments)
  16. awemany (4738 points, 643 comments)
  17. Kain_niaK (4561 points, 692 comments)
  18. BitttBurger (4410 points, 525 comments)
  19. PsyRev_ (4176 points, 477 comments)
  20. Bitcoinopoly (4002 points, 414 comments)
  21. poorbrokebastard (3986 points, 719 comments)
  22. vbuterin (3840 points, 22 comments)
  23. Shock_The_Stream (3769 points, 437 comments)
  24. todu (3692 points, 266 comments)
  25. Richy_T (3626 points, 847 comments)
  26. LovelyDay (3595 points, 332 comments)
  27. shadowofashadow (3498 points, 383 comments)
  28. rdar1999 (3475 points, 456 comments)
  29. btcnewsupdates (3403 points, 328 comments)
  30. KoKansei (3286 points, 198 comments)
  31. jonald_fyookball (3219 points, 251 comments)
  32. 1s44c (3186 points, 619 comments)
  33. nanoakron (2989 points, 113 comments)
  34. NilacTheGrim (2925 points, 440 comments)
  35. singularity87 (2746 points, 240 comments)
  36. Vibr8gKiwi (2594 points, 148 comments)
  37. jstolfi (2541 points, 263 comments)
  38. esquonk (2532 points, 2 comments)
  39. fiah84 (2496 points, 289 comments)
  40. unitedstatian (2445 points, 451 comments)
  41. MobTwo (2372 points, 147 comments)
  42. chernobyl169 (2353 points, 199 comments)
  43. kairepaire (2280 points, 17 comments)
  44. ShadowOfHarbringer (2272 points, 206 comments)
  45. playfulexistence (2241 points, 99 comments)
  46. LiamGaughan (2240 points, 83 comments)
  47. redlightsaber (2238 points, 328 comments)
  48. we-are-all-satoshi (2201 points, 39 comments)
  49. Annapurna317 (2198 points, 223 comments)
  50. MagicalTux (2153 points, 114 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. by censorship_notifier (8585 points, 1166 comments)
  2. The idiocracy of bitcoin by PedanticPendant (7772 points, 750 comments)
  3. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method by boomtnt46 (6980 points, 1178 comments)
  4. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase by 11111101000 (5329 points, 1019 comments)
  5. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" by Egon_1 (4810 points, 506 comments)
  6. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. by peptocurrency (4748 points, 635 comments)
  7. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." by BeijingBitcoins (3417 points, 463 comments)
  8. Latest projections show BTC will break the time space continuum by cryptopicker (3292 points, 146 comments)
  9. Two biggest Bitcoin subs according to their counterparts (posted on both subs) by themetalfriend (3135 points, 232 comments)
  10. rBitcoin logic: Cashing out? You should kill yourself instead by DrunkPanda (2918 points, 560 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 2527 points: esquonk's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  2. 2289 points: nanoakron's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  3. 2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  4. 2018 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
  5. 1215 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
  6. 1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  7. 1184 points: anothertimewaster's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  8. 1180 points: TacoPi's comment in Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase
  9. 962 points: insanityzwolf's comment in bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
  10. 868 points: SethEllis's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Many people might not have noticed, Greg Maxwell has already publicly (and naïvely) *admitted* that he is deliberately attempting to SUPPRESS THE PRICE OF BITCOIN. If Bitcoin were a government-regulated market, his sorry ass would be in jail by now for market manipulation - which is illegal.

(I'm posting this over here in bitcoin_uncensored instead of btc - simply because I happen to be more pissed off than usual today at that ignorant piece of shit Greg Maxwell, and I don't want to clutter up btc with too much profanity from me, to avoid possibly offending anyone :=)
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/jihan-wu-google-tech-talk/
https://archive.is/55VtA#selection-301.128-301.394
Greg Maxwell: If you imagine that everyone in the world would wake up tomorrow and know in their heart of hearts that bitcoin would be the true reserve currency of the world, then this would not be good news. The result would be war. People would fight over the supply of bitcoin.
The above statement is a surprisingly revealing (and inculpatory) admission by Gregory Maxwell (self-appointed dictator of Bitcoin monetary policy CTO of Blockstream, and architect of the Core stalling scaling road-map signed by 57 devs and wannabe devs).
It is quoted from the transcript of the invite-only, semi-transparent (manually transcribed, not recorded) Fed meeting private meeting between Core/Blockstream devs and Chinese miners, held in Silicon Valley on July 30-31, 2016.
There is only one way that a trader (or a government regulator) would interpret the above statement by Gregory Maxwell nullc, where he (perhaps inadvertently but) openly and brazenly admits that he is trying to prevent a free market where "people would fight over the supply of bitcoin".
Greg's statement constitutes a clear and damning admission of attempted market manipulation.
Market manipulation is typically used for activities such as insider trading, and front-running - which are illegal in regulated markets.
Greg Maxwell has publicly admitted that he is attempting to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price - at least in the short term (perhaps so that he and certain insider "friends" of his can continue to buy bitcoins while they're still waaay below their possible future value of one million dollars per bitcoin?).
Fuck you, Greg Maxwell - and the central bankers you rode in on.
submitted by ydtm to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-05-17 to 2018-05-16 16:37 PDT

Period: 364.19 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 171217
Rate (per day) 2.75 467.46
Unique Redditors 530 18280
Combined Score 587073 990947

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 27576 points, 60 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. I'm Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com and world's first investor in Bitcoin startups. AMA (974 points, 941 comments)
    2. The pro Bitcoin Cash video from CNBC made it to the very front page of Yahoo.com! (863 points, 191 comments)
    3. I (Roger Ver) will be doing an AMA on Monday Dec 18th starting at 10AM EST on /BTC because /Bitcoin is completely censored. (820 points, 413 comments)
    4. Reminder: Blockstream and Core got 100% of everything they asked for. (808 points, 333 comments)
    5. I'm giving away $100 each of BCH and BTC on live TV tomorrow by displaying the private key. Guess why? (744 points, 832 comments)
    6. How wrong were they? More than 2 years ago the CEO of Lightning Labs said LN would be ready in less than 6 months (689 points, 276 comments)
    7. To the Censorship loving tyrants in /Bitcoin, don't Say Bitcoin.com didn't warn you! "In the unlikely event that the 2MB block size increase portion of Segwit2x fails to activate, Bitcoin.com will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively." (677 points, 364 comments)
    8. I just bet 1,000 BTC (~$4M USD) that Segwit 2X coin will have more value than Segwit 1x coin. (645 points, 399 comments)
    9. If you think consumers are going to throw away $100’s (and soon $1000’s) on transaction fees to open up a payment channel on the Lightning network, you are delusional. (599 points, 221 comments)
    10. PSA: If you get an email from me (Roger Ver) asking to borrow BTC, you can be 100% sure it as a scam. If they ask to borrow BCH, it is more plausible, but still a scam. (597 points, 73 comments)
  2. 23187 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (4814 points, 511 comments)
    2. WSJ: "[bitcoin core] fees have reached an average cost of about $30 per transaction. That makes bitcoin virtually unusable for all but very large transactions. The Bitcoin Cash crowd is just trying to offer a solution to that problem." (1303 points, 339 comments)
    3. Rick Falkvinge:"Fun fact: I am aware of a truckload of companies currently in the process of converting from Bitcoin Legacy to #Bitcoin Cash. I am aware of zero (0) companies going the other direction." (654 points, 228 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin.com wallet now displays "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" balances. Should satisfy everyone, right? ;)" (626 points, 448 comments)
    5. GDAX: "We will open the BCH-BTC Order Book on Wednesday, January 17 at 9:00 am PST." (624 points, 114 comments)
    6. Stephen (BitPay CEO):"a typical #bitcoin transaction costs $1.80 now, >200k unconfirmed transactions, time for a hard fork to larger blocks ... 8mb please" (545 points, 113 comments)
    7. Erik Voorhees: "Fellow Bitcoiners, are you ever going to realize how problematic these fees are getting? Avg fees now over $40 per tx. A year ago avg fee was $4. A year prior, $0.40. Growing faster than price, and exponentially with usage. We just spent $4800 to move 15 BTC in one TX." (539 points, 147 comments)
    8. @Bitcoin: "The ownership of this account has not changed hands. I became busy with other things, much has changed since then and I've decided to take a more active role in the community once again." (536 points, 125 comments)
    9. BitPay CEO: “If people can’t engage in commerce, it’s hard to imagine why they’d want to store their money in Bitcoin in the first place” (530 points, 134 comments)
    10. U.S. Regulators to Subpoena Crypto Exchange Bitfinex, Tether (527 points, 196 comments)
  3. 13318 points, 28 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Censored! Youtube removes Roger Ver's video on "The effects of Censorship and Propaganda upon Bitcoin" (1001 points, 297 comments)
    2. CNBC is waking up (882 points, 145 comments)
    3. Despite massing brigading from bitcoin and core, @Bitcoin twitter account has gained 50k subscribers since it came out in support of BCH last week. (623 points, 198 comments)
    4. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (616 points, 114 comments)
    5. Bitfinex defines Bitcoin Cash as the coin that fulfills the original promise of p2p cash, a bitcoin upgrade that is ready to scale and sound money! #Winning (608 points, 166 comments)
    6. Wouldn't wanna be this shopper. (587 points, 125 comments)
    7. GDAX enabling EUBCH trading pair next week. #winning 🎆 (574 points, 67 comments)
    8. Thank to this community's effort, Forbes has corrected Kyle's Torpey's LN article to clarify LTC tx fees is much higher than BCH. Now let's ask for 1 more correction: Bitcoin cash is not Bcash. Links in comments. (508 points, 176 comments)
    9. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning labs calls out Blockstream on letting users tinker with LN that's neither safe nor ready for mainnet. (492 points, 269 comments)
    10. The $2000 tip for Bitcoin ABC dev shows we don't need blockstream to pay our developers, we can do community funding through tippr! (462 points, 131 comments)
  4. 10330 points, 13 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." (3417 points, 465 comments)
    2. Dear Reddit Admins: We need to talk about /Bitcoin (1340 points, 284 comments)
    3. Paid for this whisky with Bitcoin Cash! Ginza bar becomes third Tokyo retail establishment to accept BCC (749 points, 60 comments)
    4. Samson Mow says Bitcoin isn't for people earning less than $2 a day. With average transaction fees now at $27.20, is Bitcoin even for people earning less than $100 a day? (661 points, 163 comments)
    5. Protip: If you are new to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, you really should read the document that started it all, the Bitcoin whitepaper [PDF] (647 points, 73 comments)
    6. /Bitcoin in a nutshell (537 points, 69 comments)
    7. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (482 points, 173 comments)
    8. Shit, they're on to us (455 points, 67 comments)
    9. "Am I so out of touch?" (437 points, 164 comments)
    10. abrkn on Twitter: I've bought some Bitcoin Cash. Now I just need @Blockstream to keep kicking developers, banning wallets, and insulting miners. (426 points, 95 comments)
  5. 9412 points, 19 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. /bitcoin is censoring the NIST report that says "Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain" and Bitcoin Core is not. If you have to censor to get people to believe you, then you have lost. (854 points, 500 comments)
    2. Someone hacked the account todu which was a mod here to point users to /bitcoin (736 points, 263 comments)
    3. Congrats: /btc has reached 150,000 subscribers! (702 points, 356 comments)
    4. Twitter continues to go downhill - flags @Bitcoin account as ‘temporarily restricted due to unusual activity’ (637 points, 216 comments)
    5. There is a huge edit war on Wikipedia where trolls like the user "Jtbobwaysf" are trying very hard to inject the word "bcash" into Bitcoin Cash pages and reverting/editing other pages that speak factually poorly on topics such as Lightning Network, Segwit, etc. (626 points, 153 comments)
    6. What /bitcoin mods desperately don't want you to see! (597 points, 106 comments)
    7. /btc is trending on reddit today, congrats everyone! (584 points, 18 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (579 points, 335 comments)
    9. /DarkNetMarkets shut down by Reddit (452 points, 324 comments)
    10. Just a heads up on what is going on in this sub - please be aware of what is happening. There is a coordinated effort by a specific group to undermine and destroy everything that we support because they are about to lose power come mid-November. (422 points, 200 comments)
  6. 9302 points, 2 submissions: censorship_notifier
    1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. (8584 points, 1173 comments)
    2. New anti-censorship bot for /bitcoin (718 points, 347 comments)
  7. 8263 points, 15 submissions: jessquit
    1. You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction (1375 points, 386 comments)
    2. There never was a "scaling problem." The only problem is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale." (776 points, 419 comments)
    3. Please stop saying "Increase the block size" (661 points, 450 comments)
    4. [PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (625 points, 216 comments)
    5. Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (585 points, 587 comments)
    6. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (535 points, 346 comments)
    7. Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (508 points, 104 comments)
    8. There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 171 comments)
    9. Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (462 points, 407 comments)
    10. If you don't agree that the mission is to make onchain transactions readily available to ALL people at ALL income levels then you don't understand the whole reason Bitcoin was invented to begin with (449 points, 203 comments)
  8. 8227 points, 17 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. No Neo I'm trying to tell you ... (700 points, 77 comments)
    2. Blockstream is falling apart - Greg Maxwell resigns - Blockstream takes down team page in a hurry to reorg team - Adam Back must be worried (680 points, 496 comments)
    3. * Ripple is not mineable (it is a centralized private blockchain run by banks) (628 points, 254 comments)
    4. rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains (576 points, 188 comments)
    5. Fixed - Bitcoin Cash moving money far better. SegWitCoin moving money with high fees and slow confirmation times! (538 points, 105 comments)
    6. Blockstream investor emails leaked - shows Blockstream motivation to steal transaction fees from miners and pay to Liquid sidechain customers (531 points, 250 comments)
    7. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (511 points, 61 comments)
    8. "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO (494 points, 143 comments)
    9. Coinbase comes through and does the correct thing and adds clarification on the upcoming Segwit2x Fork (452 points, 199 comments)
    10. Core trolls have hard decisions to make (437 points, 141 comments)
  9. 8207 points, 19 submissions: Windowly
    1. "If BCH hashpower > BTC, I'll start referring to it as just 'Bitcoin' :" ~ Gavin on twitter (773 points, 238 comments)
    2. You want to go grab a coffee?? (643 points, 420 comments)
    3. "I guess my idea of "freedom from corrupt banks" didn't include transaction fees that forced 99% of the world's population to keep using banks."~Erik Voorhees (595 points, 122 comments)
    4. "With recent developments, I'm putting all available dev resources to retool my software for #Bitcoin Cash. I suspect I'm far from alone."~Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party) (493 points, 134 comments)
    5. "We've tested Bitcoin Cash vs Lightning Network and... LN feels so unnecessary and over-complicated. Also, still more expensive than Bitcoin Cash fees - and that's not taking into account the $3 fees each way you open or close a $50 channel. Also two different balances? Confusing" ~ HandCash (465 points, 252 comments)
    6. That Awkward Moment. . . . (431 points, 129 comments)
    7. "There was an entire mall in 2013 to 2015 in Berlin that accepted Bitcoin. This stopped when fees rose. There was wide adoption once. Fees kill use"~Dr. Craig S. Wright (427 points, 155 comments)
    8. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (419 points, 177 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash finally released on Open Bazaar! (417 points, 36 comments)
    10. Trezor is refusing to provide full wallet support for Segwit2x. This means if you buy Segwit2X on an exchange you can't store it in your hardware wallet. Another reason to buy a Ledger! (394 points, 200 comments)
  10. 8112 points, 2 submissions: PedanticPendant
    1. The idiocracy of bitcoin (7759 points, 751 comments)
    2. I made a new version of the well-known "Differences between the two versions of Bitcoin" diagram which I think is more informative (353 points, 135 comments)
  11. 7032 points, 11 submissions: rdar1999
    1. South Koreans sign petition (100k signatures) to reject ban proposal and 30k signatures asking to FIRE the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister for market manipulation. Crypto is winning!! (1858 points, 119 comments)
    2. BREAKING NEWS: South Korean Government confirms NO CRYPTO BAN. What they will do is to enforce regulations, anti money laundering task force, anti market manipulation, the usual stuff. (1089 points, 52 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder: Vitalik "I consider BCH a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name." (800 points, 181 comments)
    4. Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (563 points, 262 comments)
    5. GDAX: Bitcoin Cash Launch Retrospective -- trades were halted after 3 minutes because THE STASH DRIED OUT DUE TO AN AVALANCHE OF BUY ORDERS (486 points, 164 comments)
    6. While Jamie Dimon is shutting down your accounts, Russia’s largest State Bank is about to open cryptocurrency exchange In europe (433 points, 39 comments)
    7. Flippening: blockexplorer.com says: "We have made the decision to support the only bitcoin fork with a postive utility momentum, which is Bitcoin Cash.(...) We will not add future support for the Blockstream fork of bitcoin ("Bitcoin Legacy"), and will be deprecating it entirely " (426 points, 110 comments)
    8. National Institute of Standards and Technology confirm: "Bitcoin Core (BTC) is a fork and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the real Bitcoin" p.43 para 8.1.2 (365 points, 115 comments)
    9. TABGATE==> the astroturfing/hired shills scandal. Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls. Just read! (358 points, 273 comments)
    10. Naomi Brockwell on Twitter: "[I] won’t succumb to censorship through intimidation." (330 points, 190 comments)
  12. 6983 points, 1 submission: boomtnt46
    1. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method (6983 points, 1192 comments)
  13. 6148 points, 7 submissions: normal_rc
    1. Legacy Bitcoin tries to buy a cup of coffee (2299 points, 503 comments)
    2. WARNING: Brutal scam. Guy buys a Ledger Nano wallet on Ebay, and it steals all his cryptocurrency ($34,000, which is his life's savings). (1475 points, 522 comments)
    3. How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC. (590 points, 221 comments)
    4. Cryptocurrency usually automatically downvotes any pro-BCH thread into oblivion. But I got my CoinText.io post to trend to #3 on their front page, by simply not saying "Bitcoin Cash". Proof that people would love BCH if they kept an open mind. (541 points, 208 comments)
    5. Tor Project can accept small donations again, thanks to Bitcoin Cash. (452 points, 35 comments)
    6. 100,000+ Merchants Start Accepting Bitcoin Cash. More than 100,000 BitPay merchants are now accepting Bitcoin Cash with the option seemingly automatically turned on for all of them. (413 points, 109 comments)
    7. Bitpay announcement: Electron Cash wallet now fully supports Bitpay BIP70 payment invoices for Bitcoin Cash. (378 points, 37 comments)
  14. 6118 points, 12 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Starbucks CEO Wants Crypto. Considering All Currencies Except Bitcoin Core (BTC): "It is not a currency today nor will it be in the future” (824 points, 221 comments)
    2. Roger Ver: "Dear @reddit, [...] I'll pay you $100,000 USD if you simply appoint a moderator to /Bitcoin who supports free speech." (803 points, 428 comments)
    3. Hundreds of botted accounts mixed with some real ones simultaneously post "Bitcoin Cash is Trash" on twitter. Blockstream reaching sheer desperation status. (724 points, 285 comments)
    4. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! (597 points, 115 comments)
    5. ProtonMail asking for community assistance to enable Bitcoin Cash payments (536 points, 84 comments)
    6. WooCommerce brings Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to its 380,000 online retailers. (471 points, 98 comments)
    7. A Bitcoin Entrepreneur Jonathan Hamel knowingly misleads a Canadian Parliamentary committee to smear Bitcoin Cash (BCH). More Lawlessness from Bitcoin/Lightning (406 points, 193 comments)
    8. Largest Sports Gambling Site in the World, Bovada, now Accepts BCH. Billions of dollars in transactions a year (384 points, 60 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash support on OpenBazaar now live (360 points, 44 comments)
    10. Korean exchange KuCoin announce BCH trading pairs. (347 points, 40 comments)
  15. 5793 points, 12 submissions: BitcoinIsTehFuture
    1. “Graphene” is a new Bitcoin block propagation technology that is 10x more efficient than Core’s “Compact Blocks”! Created by: Gavin Andresen, A. Pinar Ozisik, George Bissias, Amir Houmansadr, Brian Neil Levine. (719 points, 225 comments)
    2. Just so you guys know: Ethereum just had another successful hardfork network upgrade. Blockstream is wrong when they say you cannot hard fork to improve things. (663 points, 399 comments)
    3. Western Union vs. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash (634 points, 102 comments)
    4. It's called "Bitcoin Cash". The term "Bcash" is a social attack run by bitcoin. Not joking. Here is the full explanation, with proof. (568 points, 311 comments)
    5. On a reply I made in bitcoin that had over 350 upvotes, I was first somehow blocked from being able to reply on bitcoin and then actually banned when I edited my comment to state that I was blocked from replying. (505 points, 100 comments)
    6. The /bitconnect subreddit just got set to private! Bitconnect experienced a 90% drop, from over $300 down to $26! The scam has gone belly up at last! (442 points, 169 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Core Dev "Luke-jr" is asked why he is interested in Bitcoin. This is one of the main people in charge of Bitcoin right now. (408 points, 384 comments)
    8. I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (405 points, 170 comments)
    9. #NOTX (392 points, 56 comments)
    10. Bitstamp just now renamed "Bcash" to "Bitcoin Cash". Win! (366 points, 61 comments)
  16. 5332 points, 1 submission: 11111101000
    1. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase (5332 points, 1034 comments)
  17. 5148 points, 2 submissions: peptocurrency
    1. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. (4745 points, 637 comments)
    2. Dear Bitcoin: You're right. BTC has been attacked. (403 points, 107 comments)
  18. 5048 points, 8 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1427 points, 434 comments)
    2. President of SBI Holdings: "The vision of the original Bitcoin white paper written by Satoshi Nakamoto calls for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. That is a powerful vision, and SBI Group will devote resources to enable a future world where Bitcoin Cash is used globally for daily payments." (847 points, 84 comments)
    3. They used to use Bitcoin... (738 points, 179 comments)
    4. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s (496 points, 434 comments)
    5. CEO of Bitcoin.com Roger Ver challenges Samson Mow to a debate once again, will Samson refuse again? The reason small blockers do not debate and need censorship is because they know their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. (429 points, 208 comments)
    6. Update from BitGo: "Due to strong customer interest BitGo will enable full support of Bitcoin Cash" (406 points, 25 comments)
    7. BitPay CEO hints at possible Bitcoin Cash acceptance: "We do listen to our customers and for quite some time their number 1 complaint has been the high fees and slow confirmation times. We really don't like to pre-announce things though. Things move fast and plans can change at the last minute. " (359 points, 73 comments)
    8. Congratulations, we have surpassed /bitcoin in "users here now" with 3600 users! (346 points, 63 comments)
  19. 4323 points, 6 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Government: "Cryptocurrencies are too risky." Also government: "Buy lottery tickets." (1297 points, 141 comments)
    2. Death of a Scamcoin: Bitconnect's front page screenshotted moments before they went private, showing panic, anger, and lots of ill-advised investment claims, several claiming to have lost over $100k (949 points, 314 comments)
    3. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY (722 points, 349 comments)
    4. Archive.org has received over twice as many donations ($4800) in Bitcoincash as compared to BTC. This is how we win. (547 points, 157 comments)
    5. Segwhat? Gavin Andresen has developed a new block propagation algorithm able to compress the block down to 1/10th of the size of a Compact Block (Core's technology) using bloom filters called GRAPHENE. 10 times larger blocks, no size increase! 1mb 10mb, 8mb - 80mb, etc. (407 points, 182 comments)
    6. Remember Ross Ulbricht: Dread Pirate Roberts and the Silk Road experiment (401 points, 218 comments)
  20. 4259 points, 10 submissions: knight222
    1. PSA: /bitcoin IS UNDER ATTACK (764 points, 262 comments)
    2. /btc is trending! (522 points, 63 comments)
    3. Bitstamp To Launch Bitcoin Cash Trading (483 points, 81 comments)
    4. CBS is referring the new chain as "Bitcoin Cash" and the old chain as "Bitcoin Classic". Ahah (414 points, 121 comments)
    5. Bitcoin cash (BCH) price could lead to bitcoin "death spiral" - Quartz (373 points, 55 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Cash just destroyed the narrative of a contentious hard fork. There is nothing contentious with free choice. (372 points, 115 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash support expected in the next Mycelium release! (362 points, 84 comments)
    8. Anti-Censorship Bot For Detecting Deleted Posts on Reddit Gets Censored - Bitcoin News (326 points, 88 comments)
    9. Every mainstream news outlet refer the fork as "Bitcoin Cash". (324 points, 123 comments)
    10. On Shapeshift right now. (319 points, 98 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (18478 points, 1851 comments)
  2. H0dl (8651 points, 1170 comments)
  3. tippr (8182 points, 3135 comments)
  4. MemoryDealers (7610 points, 205 comments)
  5. ForkiusMaximus (7398 points, 685 comments)
  6. Ant-n (6860 points, 932 comments)
  7. knight222 (6608 points, 689 comments)
  8. imaginary_username (6465 points, 524 comments)
  9. BitcoinIsTehFuture (5444 points, 475 comments)
  10. LexGrom (5404 points, 1642 comments)
  11. BeijingBitcoins (5188 points, 404 comments)
  12. BitcoinXio (5072 points, 282 comments)
  13. Adrian-X (4416 points, 854 comments)
  14. poorbrokebastard (4324 points, 782 comments)
  15. PsyRev_ (4261 points, 532 comments)
  16. Egon_1 (4254 points, 292 comments)
  17. BitttBurger (4154 points, 464 comments)
  18. btcnewsupdates (4084 points, 402 comments)
  19. Kain_niaK (3996 points, 660 comments)
  20. cryptorebel (3801 points, 376 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. by censorship_notifier (8584 points, 1173 comments)
  2. The idiocracy of bitcoin by PedanticPendant (7759 points, 751 comments)
  3. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method by boomtnt46 (6983 points, 1192 comments)
  4. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase by 11111101000 (5332 points, 1034 comments)
  5. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" by Egon_1 (4814 points, 511 comments)
  6. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. by peptocurrency (4745 points, 637 comments)
  7. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." by BeijingBitcoins (3417 points, 465 comments)
  8. Latest projections show BTC will break the time space continuum by cryptopicker (3288 points, 151 comments)
  9. <--- This many people want bitcoincash.org to follow Coinbase and go green for brand recognition by connor-j (3262 points, 373 comments)
  10. Two biggest Bitcoin subs according to their counterparts (posted on both subs) by themetalfriend (3131 points, 232 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 2533 points: esquonk's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  2. 2290 points: nanoakron's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  3. 2028 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  4. 2019 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
  5. 1210 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
  6. 1205 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  7. 1181 points: anothertimewaster's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  8. 1178 points: TacoPi's comment in Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase
  9. 959 points: insanityzwolf's comment in bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
  10. 871 points: SethEllis's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Spectcular Weekend in Bitcoin and Sports -- Gavin Andresen Steps Down, Welcome Wladimir New Faucet Bitcoin 2020  Earn Satoshis every 60 minutes ... Earn Free Unlimited Bitcoin Without Investment-2017 Best ... Bitcoin We Have A BOTTOM?! - March 2020 Price Prediction & News Analysis The Bitcoin Foundation - YouTube

Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell [1]) is a software developer best known for his involvement with bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts.. Contents. Career; Bitcoin; References; Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the bitcoin market in 2010, and was declared by Satoshi Nakamoto as the lead developer of the ... Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell) is a software developer best known for his involvement with bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts.. Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the bitcoin market in 2010, and was declared by Satoshi Nakamoto as the lead developer of the reference implementation for bitcoin client ... Gavin Andresen is the chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation. He worked as a software developer for a number of companies in the VOIP (voice over internet protocol),3D graphics, virtual reality, and gaming industries. Contents. 1 Background; 2 Education; 3 References; 4 JLN News Feed; Background. Starting in late 2010, Andresen began to work with Satoshi Nakamoto on bitcoin. On December 19 ... From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. Gavin Andresen. Born: 1966 (aged 48–49) Residence: Amherst, Massachusetts: Active: 2010–present Gavin Andresen was the Chief Scientist for the Bitcoin Foundation. References. Predecessor: Satoshi Nakamoto: Bitcoin Core maintainer 2011–2014 Successor: Wladimir van der Laan: Bitcoin Core developers. Active: Wladimir van der Laan • Gavin ... Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell) is a software developer best known for his involvement with Bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts. Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the Bitcoin market in 2010, and by 2011 was designated by Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, as lead developer on Bitcoin ...

[index] [15497] [7862] [6941] [632] [18317] [43761] [11405] [33367] [28692] [49666]

Spectcular Weekend in Bitcoin and Sports -- Gavin Andresen Steps Down, Welcome Wladimir

He then handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen,[20] transferred several related domains to various prominent members of the bitcoin community ... With Updates From BitFlyer, GoCoin, BitFury Capital, Swarm,Tecnisa And A Reddit AMA With Bitcoin Core Developer Gavin Andresen Get Links To Sources, The AMA ... 9:10 am What Satoshi Didn’t Know – Gavin Andresen 9:45 am In-Depth Q&A Session with Gavin Andresen 10:00 am The Internet of Value Exchange – Jeremy Allaire & Sean Neville 11:00 am Bitcoin ... Vous pouvez me tiper directement en bitcoin à cette adresse: 1FboUA5ZvzTXyUGEugSFct1bixjEsZjGmx Ou sur tipeee en suivant ce lien : https://www.tipeee.com/le-... Gavin Andresen about Bitcoin - Duration: 16:09. WYONAPICTURES 4,468 views. 16:09. Is America right to fear Huawei? The Economist - Duration: 9:58. The Economist Recommended for you. New; 9:58 ...

#