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
"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.
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.
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.
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 bothleft 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:
Default thread sorting changed to "controversial" in selected threads instead of "best" like nearly every other subreddit
Comment/upvote scores hidden by default (combined with the previous point this prevented theymos and other unpopular mods like StarMaged and BashCo from ending up at the bottom of every thread they posted in)
The implementation of a custom CSS sheet that disguises long threads of [removed] comments. This was especially effective at the time as the censorship was obvious since threads were becoming wastelands of hundreds of deleted comments, similar to other Reddit throw downs like GamerGate
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:
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).
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.
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).
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:
The possibility of an irrevocable community divergence, as has happened in Ethereum (discussed below)
The chance of introducing new code bugs by forcing a network update without totally comprehensive software developer review
The possibility of reducing decentralisation in the network as higher hardware requirements puts greater strain on network nodes and miners
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:
Transaction fees are continuously rising as transactions compete for the limited space in each block
Confirmation times for any given transaction are also increasing, especially ones without a rapidly escalating fee attached
Fee and confirmation times is making BItcoin hostile to new users, who are confused by their difficulties with this “revolutionary” new technology
Restricting Bitcoin’s growth increases the likelihood it will be overtaken by another unrestricted cryptocurrency
Passively validating the stance of /Bitcoin to continue censoring the debate about this important issue
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is anopen-source projectfounded on the ideal offree 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:
The Bitcoin Core and /Bitcoin stated policy is to avoid a hard fork at all costs. So there is no risk of a hard fork on that side.
The Bitcoin XT/Classic/Unlimited and /btc side is prepared for a hard fork if necessary, but it will only come to pass if a clear majority of miners (and presumably users, although that's harder to determine) are already signalling that they would be onboard. There is no exact threshold value, but no miner is going to risk publishing a block larger than 1MB until they are very confident the network will follow them.
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.
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 /BitcoinTheymos 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.
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
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:
Either Bitcoin dies, and $7 billion dollars in investor wealth evaporates into thin air; or
The simplest and safest "good enough" on-chain scaling upgrade gets rolled out ASAP - ie, we will get bigger blocks so fast it will make your head spin.
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:
Bitcoin looks a lot like hard-to-use antiquated assembly code - and Ethereum looks like an easy-to-use modern programming language;
Blockstream with its toxic, opaque and oppressive culture is scaring away all the new devs - who are flocking to alt-coins like Ethereum which has a healthy, transparent and welcoming culture.
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:
when they repeatedly freaked out and went nuclear and refused to compromise whenever any dev made a simple safe scaling proposal, like 20 MB blocks, or 8 MB blocks, or 4 MB blocks, or 2 MB blocks, or Adaptive Blocks, etc etc.
scaring all the good devs and a lot of investors into alt-coins.
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.
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.
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.
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/
/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.
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.comhttps://forum.bitcoin.com/https://reddit.com/btchttps://bitco.in/forum/https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/ Hope you are both well, Z
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
Alex de Vries. Bitcoin’s growing energy problem. Joule, 2(5):801–805, 2018.
C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings, pages 1–10, Sept 2013.
Ittay Eyal, Adem Efe Gencer, Emin G¨un Sirer, and Robbert Van Renesse. Bitcoinng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In NSDI, pages 45–59, 2016.
Ittay Eyal and Emin G¨un Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Communications of the ACM, 61(7):95–102, 2018.
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.
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.
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.
Uri Klarman, Soumya Basu, Aleksandar Kuzmanovic, and Emin G¨un Sirer. bloxroute: A scalable trustless blockchain distribution network whitepaper.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008.
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.
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.
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.
Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. ACM, 2017.
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.
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.
Peter R Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
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.
Y Sompolinsky and A Zohar. Phantom: A scalable blockdag protocol, 2018.
Yonatan Sompolinsky, Yoad Lewenberg, and Aviv Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2016:1159, 2016.
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.
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)
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)
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)
2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
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.
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
1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
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.
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 thecentral bankersyou rode in on.
[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)
Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (585 points, 587 comments)
I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (535 points, 346 comments)
Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (508 points, 104 comments)
There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 171 comments)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
2028 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
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.
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
1205 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell ) 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 ...
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, 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 ...