GitHub - jtoomim/p2pool: Peer-to-peer Bitcoin mining pool
GitHub - jtoomim/p2pool: Peer-to-peer Bitcoin mining pool
jtoomim (Jonathan Toomim) · GitHub
Bitcoin Mining Pool Triplemining - Toronto Appliances
Ethereum Community Enthralled Over ... - Bitcoin News
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story. My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to manyread.casharticles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important. summary & my narrating of the story: The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan". On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds. By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books. Important resources:coinspice IFP timeline&Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions History Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source] Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source] Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article] Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source] Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function. Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article] Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature. Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it. Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source] Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement] Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement] Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source] Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source] Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source] Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much. Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source] Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects. Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source] Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article] Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3 Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source] Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source] Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source] Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source] Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source] Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source] Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source] Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source] Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source] Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source] Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source] Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source] Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source] Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source] Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source] May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source] May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source] May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source] May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source] May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source] Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source] Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source] Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source] Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source] Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source] Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source] Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source] Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source] Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source] 4th year, august 2020 – 2021 Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source] Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source] Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source] Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source] Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source] Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source] Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source] Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding. Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.” Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
LOEx Market Research Report on August 7: The release of the US dollar is the source of the bull market for gold and Bitcoin
[Today's Hot Tips]
1. [Polkadot Official: The project shall not split DOT until block 1248328 has been denominated]
In the morning of August 7, Polkadot officially released the "Announcement on the Change of the DOT Denomination of the Chinese Ecosystem".
2.[Chief Developer of Bitcoin ABC: Agree to implement the ASERT difficulty adjustment proposal] On the evening of August 6, the chief developer of Bitcoin ABC, Amuary, published an article introducing the November improvement plan of the Bitcoin ABC full node software:
Agree to implement the "aserti3-2d (ASERT)" proposal proposed by the developer, Jonathan Toomim, which has been supported by most BCH node software;
Add a new coinbase rule, all newly mined blocks must contain an output that will allocate 8% of newly mined tokens to a designated address.
The focus of recent controversy in the BCH community is to improve the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA). 3. [Multiple BCH developers jointly declared that they will upgrade the implementation of the ASERT DAA algorithm on November 15] According to Bitcoincash's news on the evening of August 6, multiple BCH developers jointly declared they will implement the aserti3-2d difficulty adjustment algorithm (ASERT DAA) on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) chain on November 15, 2020. This algorithm was designed by Mark Lundeberg and implemented by Jonathan Toomim and other developers. [Today's market analysis] Bitcoin (BTC)BTC fluctuated upwards slightly in the early morning, rising to 11899 USDT, and fluctuating sharply around 5 o'clock. It fell below 11700 USDT in the short-term and fell to 11616 USDT at its lowest, and then rebounded slightly. At present, BTC is finishing in a narrow range around 11750 USDT. Most mainstream currencies showed a volatile downward trend in the early morning. BTC is currently trading at 11871.9 USDT on LOEx Global, an increase of 0.31% in 24h. https://preview.redd.it/xj4ba3j2vif51.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=1d3aa1aa09afbe95ecffa8274e9482df8c89e73c The price of gold has exceeded $2,000 per ounce. Many people in the currency circle may not understand the significance of the price of $2,000 to the gold market. This was once considered "the gate of never breaking through." Because more than a year ago, many people still thought that gold might be out of the market. In the future, gold will no longer be used as an important asset and currency reserve. Of course, it has been severely beaten now. This price is a bit similar to Bitcoin's original $10,000, but Bitcoin has broken through $10,000 again and again. Gold's $2,000 barrier is much stronger. However, things have changed and a miracle finally happened. If Bitcoin's rise and fall to this day have nothing to do with the rise and fall of the US dollar as a global reserve currency, then the prospects of Bitcoin can basically be judged as finished. why? Because the value of Bitcoin is supported by the imagination and consensus that it can become a stored-value asset and reserve currency such as gold. Therefore, Bitcoin is related to the strength of the rise and fall of the US dollar, which is the correct development path. Therefore, the devaluation of the US dollar is the source of the bull market for gold and Bitcoin. Operation suggestions: Support level: the first support level is 11000 points, the second support level is 10800 integers; Resistance level: the first resistance level is 12000 points, the second resistance level is 12500 points. LOEx is registered in Seychelles. It is a global one-stop digital asset service platform with business distribution nodes in 20 regions around the world. It has been exempted from Seychelles and Singapore Monetary Authority (MAS) digital currency trading services. Provide services and secure encrypted digital currency trading environment for 2 million community members in 24 hours.
Could it be We Just Need a Way to Veto Amaury? An Idea for Community Governance, Which May Solve Current IFP Too: Introducing The Governance Council
So I was inspired by a recent comment by u/jtoomim running this way: "Everyone is wrong some of the time. We need a system in which one person being wrong about something doesn't doom us all. [...] In the USA, if the President vetos a bill, it can still be made into law of the Senate and House vote to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Something like that could be helpful to BCH, too." I think this is 100% spot on. We face many challenges with Bitcoin Cash. The good news is we have some caring, amazing talent in this community, giving us the ability to overcome most if not any obstacle. However, our firepower isn't focused. We're far less capable/effective than we might be because of it. The problem is governance. If we can improve governance I think we can improve our chances at success at least ten times. So I came up with an idea: The Governance Council The idea behind the GC is giving us a powerful representative body for making community decisions. As the BCH community emerged from the split I think we were too busy putting out fires (cough CSW) to get something like this done. Now, however, I think it's more doable, maybe imperative. Think about how much admiration and respectful consideration we have for people like Roger Ver, Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg, Jonathan Toomim etc. Now imagine these people have zero official power to stand up against any decision Amaury makes. To be sure, they have political sway. They can publish blog or reddit posts to give people a sense where they stand, and that's something. However, it's not enough. For example, as it stands, because we recognize Amaury as technical decision maker, even if the overall sentiment of the community, including everyone I named, is against the BIP 9 IFP activation by hashpower, it doesn't matter because Amaury has sole recognized tech authority. Miners like Jiang reading/following along, as they said they would do, can only estimate at best what the community wants, and even then may unilaterally decide to go the other way for whatever reason. Worse, as has been mentioned, our fate may be determined by hashpower not even community friendly! So, again, I think a GC can help. Imagine people as named were elected through a process (which I'll detail a little later what I have in mind), to form a council where their published votes formed a recognized resolution. Now, instead of selling coins, sitting depressed by the screen, debating the efficacy of yet another read.cash article to attempt to influence things as disjointed individuals, the chatter is 'how do you think so and so will vote?' 'when will the council vote?' 'have we had the vote yet?'. Everyone channels their focus to the Council making it far more clear to see, as a community, where we stand, because our individual positions are reflected cumulatively through empowered representatives. This thing can have teeth too. For example, I foresee 9 seats total, elected annually. There can be a matching multisig address attached. So for a given resolution donated funding can be made available. This means the Council can erect things on its own, such as mining pools and or dev teams etc as needed to, if necessary, combat a rogue or enemy force. There really isn't a limit on what it can do, marketing, you name it. In this way, it can also help the IFP situation, by for example first coming up with a plan that is actually approved, and then if necessary funding it. What do we think? Good idea? Move forward? I have much more in mind. Edit: this doesn't eliminate the Lead Developer / Reference Implementation role now filled by Amaury. It works alongside it. This is a Separation of Powers. For example, the president of the United States can't just spend 1 billion dollars. He first asks Congress to approve it, then he spends it. What I have in mind works in a similar way for development. I just didn't go into details (for brevity) yet.
Could it be We Just Need a Way to Veto Amaury? An Idea for Community Governance, Which May Solve Current IFP Too: Introducing The Governance Council
So I was inspired by a recent comment by u/jtoomim running this way: "Everyone is wrong some of the time. We need a system in which one person being wrong about something doesn't doom us all. [...] In the USA, if the President vetos a bill, it can still be made into law of the Senate and House vote to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Something like that could be helpful to BCH, too." I think this is 100% spot on. We face many challenges with Bitcoin Cash. The good news is we have some caring, amazing talent in this community, giving us the ability to overcome most if not any obstacle. However, our firepower isn't focused. We're far less capable/effective than we might be because of it. The problem is governance. If we can improve governance I think we can improve our chances at success at least ten times. So I came up with an idea: The Governance Council The idea behind the GC is giving us a powerful representative body for making community decisions. As the BCH community emerged from the split I think we were too busy putting out fires (cough CSW) to get something like this done. Now, however, I think it's more doable, maybe imperative. Think about how much admiration and respectful consideration we have for people like Roger Ver, Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg, Jonathan Toomim etc. Now imagine these people have zero official power to stand up against any decision Amaury makes. To be sure, they have political sway. They can publish blog or reddit posts to give people a sense where they stand, and that's something. However, it's not enough. For example, as it stands, because we recognize Amaury as technical decision maker, even if the overall sentiment of the community, including everyone I named, is against the BIP 9 IFP activation by hashpower, it doesn't matter because Amaury has sole recognized tech authority. Miners like Jiang reading/following along, as they said they would do, can only estimate at best what the community wants, and even then may unilaterally decide to go the other way for whatever reason. Worse, as has been mentioned, our fate may be determined by hashpower not even community friendly! So, again, I think a GC can help. Imagine people as named were elected through a process (which I'll detail a little later what I have in mind), to form a council where their published votes formed a recognized resolution. Now, instead of selling coins, sitting depressed by the screen, debating the efficacy of yet another read.cash article to attempt to influence things as disjointed individuals, the chatter is 'how do you think so and so will vote?' 'when will the council vote?' 'have we had the vote yet?'. Everyone channels their focus to the Council making it far more clear to see, as a community, where we stand, because our individual positions are reflected cumulatively through empowered representatives. This thing can have teeth too. For example, I foresee 9 seats total, elected annually. There can be a matching multisig address attached. So for a given resolution donated funding can be made available. This means the Council can erect things on its own, such as mining pools and or dev teams etc as needed to, if necessary, combat a rogue or enemy force. There really isn't a limit on what it can do, marketing, you name it. In this way, it can also help the IFP situation, by for example first coming up with a plan that is actually approved, and then if necessary funding it. What do we think? Good idea? Move forward? I have much more in mind.
First, I want to say that I believe that Bitcoin (BTC) will moon and that lambo will rain, for several reasons that I won’t explain here and now. So please don't shit on me or down vote this post without explaining yourself properly. I'm saying this because the crypto community is full of young and emotional person insulting each other all the time without being able to explain their view clearly. I’m just sharing my story and my opinion, if I say something wrong, please let me know. No need to be emotional. My story: I’m French (Forgive my English), a software engineer, working from home, previously in the banking industry, big noob in blockchain code related. I have been supporting bitcoin for a couple of times now, unfortunately I discovered it a bit late, promoting it to people around me as the peer to peer cash system and hoping that it will give us our financial freedom. During this bear market and after losing a big part of my coins, I finally took the time to get a better understanding of each coin I’m holding and I quickly realised that Bitcoin Cash wasn’t a scam, that Bitcoin BTC is purely a speculative asset, the playground of professional traders, used to rekt noobs and that Lightning network will end as custodial wallets because no one will take the time/risk for opening/closing/securing a channel, especially poor people (few billions). There is no benefit for the average user in maintaining a LN node. I believe it will be more interesting to mine Bitcoin rather than maintaining a LN node. So basically, I lost faith in the promise made by the Lightning Network which made me focusing on why Bitcoin Cash is the answer to a decentralized peer-to peer electronic cash system. I can confess that in the past I used to believe that second layer solution was the solution for everything, but I changed my mind. To make it simple, BCH allows to make instant payment for very cheap whereas BTC can’t and won’t. For each crypto project, I look at those different points: 1. Length of the chain BTC and BCH are sharing the longest chain, it has been working well without any issues since now 10 years. No other project has such a good track record. This make me feel confident that the chance that this will continue to work as well for years or decades. 2. Community behind it A good community for me is when you see technical people, risking their reputation/identity by posting videos, writing stuff and talking in public events about the project they support. Based on that, I believe the BCH community is the biggest of all. By technical people I mean someone talking using technical approach to back their opinion rather than beliefs based on emotions. Usually in the crypto space, those people are developers but it’s not always the case. I made a small list of technical people supporting BCH: -Peter R. Rizun: Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Unlimited. -Vitalik Butterin (he often showed his support regarding BCH but didn’t produce any content) -Jonald Fyookball: Electron Cash Developer -Jonathan Toomim: Bitcoin cash developer who made interesting proof regarding scaling onchain) -George Hotz: no need to present this awesome crazy dude! -Amaury Séchet: Bitcoin Cash Developer and French! 😊 -Rick Falkvinge: Founder of the swedish pirate party, watch his youtube channel. -Gabriel Cardona (Bitcoin cash developer) -Justin Bons : Founder & CIO of Cyber Capital -Dr. Mark B. Lundeberg: Developer researcher And there is a lot more, but those people are people that I personally trust for their work they shared and that I like following. Recently we had the Bitcoin cash city conference, another event full of people supporting BCH, that kind of thing doesn’t happen with other crypto. So many brilliant people supporting BCH, how could it be possible that all those guys are supporting a scam or a shitcoin. As well, there is often meetups and conferences all over the world. The developer community is not centralized, there is multiple teams (BitcoinABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, BCHD, Bcash, Bitcoin Verde…) independent of each other arguing sometimes about technical and political stuff, this ensure that developments and important decisions are not centralized. I find this very healthy. If a fork occurs, it’s not a problem, it will simply double your coin and allows two different ways of thinking to grow and compete. This won’t happen in Bitcoin (BTC) anymore, the way of thinking is centralized for BTC, they all share the same view: the segwit workaround + small block + layer 2 = (moon + lambo) in 18 months. Regarding CSW, I don’t believe in this guy for now but maybe I’m wrong, maybe this guy is wrongly understood but based on all the things I know about him, he seems too complicated to be someone honest. Honesty comes with simplicity. Finally, regarding Roger Ver: He is hated a lot and I still don't understand why, I feel sorry for him, I really tried my best to hate him like the crowd, but I couldn’t find any reasons. Many people are saying that he is lying and scamming people but none of them are technically able to explain why. It's really a crazy story and I understand why some people call him "Bitcoin Jesus". I personally think he is doing a great job and I thank him. 3. The current and future adoption BCH is used by reel people and reel shops (check the bitcoin cash map), there are transactions on the network to buy and sell real things that exist in the real world. Can you believe this? Maybe the only blockchain having that. Please let me know if you know another blockchain which is today serving the real world. The Bitcoin cash wallet app is easy and exciting to use. Same for the app for merchant. This can be used by my old mum! The BCH roadmap shows that more features will be added to simplify and enhance the user experience. I can’t find other blockchain having that level of user friendliness. Recently Roger Ver announced HTC mobile phone with a BCH wallet preinstalled. I read as well that Burger King is accepting BCH, but I haven’t verified if this was legit or not. 4. Existing features and roadmap -Multiple wallets built on all platform. -Bitcoin Cash point of sales: this app is the app that merchant should use to accept Bitcoin, as well very easy to use and takes 5min to install. -Cash shuffle with Cash fusion allowing to transact anonymously, making BCH competing with privacy focused coins such like Zcash, Monero, Dash. I heard this function will be implemented as well on mobile devices. -SLP token: The simplicity of creating a token and sending dividends make BCH a bit competing with all smart blockchain. Anyone can create a token, raise funds and send dividends easily and it works! Will Bitcoin Cash evolve to a smart economy? -memo.cash: A social network stored on the blockchain, fixing the problem of censorship we have on reddit for example. I recently discovered it, it’s awesome to know that you can write whatever you want, and nobody will be able to delete it and this forever. It’s really an awesome experience. I invite you to test it. For example, yesterday I had fun creating, sending token and being tipped in BCH or in any token by random people, it really shows the potential of BCH. I think I made around 50 on chain transactions in less than one hour with less than 10 cents. -Stable coins: We can build stable coin on BCH; this is something very important as well. Regarding the roadmap: It’s well described on bitcoincash.org and looks promising, but no update since the last 5 months. Not sure if it’s normal. 5. Security SHA256 based algorithm are I believe the most secure, I don’t think we need to add more regarding this. Maybe someone can help me to find some downside regarding security, often some people talk about the potential 51% attack that could occurs on BCH but I couldn’t manage to have my own opinion regarding this. Regarding the double spending attack because of the zero confirmation, I have asked many people to explain to me how this could potentially be a problem for a real merchant. I think that small and insignificant amount doesn’t need instant confirmation but if you sell a lambo then of course you should wait for at least 5 confirmations. To summarize I would even consider that zero conf is more advantageous than Lightning Network if you take everything into consideration. Worth case scenario if your restaurant is victim of a double spending attack a few times, you will just increase the confirmation level and prevent your customer from living your place. I think that it’s easier to print fake fiat money and try to pay with it rather than trying a double spending attack. But again, I might have misunderstood something or maybe there is more sophisticated exploits that I haven’t thought of. 6. Price 21 million coins, no inflation, the price currently around 300usd, a boiling community. The potential gains could be as good as BTC and even more. Maybe it’s the so waited coin that you will never convert back to that shit fiat. Certainly, one of the best coins to invest in now. 7. Electricity and efficiency Since the cost of electricity is the same whatever the size of the block, it means that BCH is more environment friendly than BTC for the same amount of transaction or we can say that it’s "wasting" less energy. Maybe if LN works one day this will change. My Conclusion: Bitcoin is technically the worst coin; all others existing coins are better technically. But Bitcoin survives because of the network effect, illustrated by its biggest hash rate, making BTC the most secure blockchain. As well because of promises made by the Lightning Network. Bitcoin is the gold of crypto currencies. Bitcoin like Gold have both almost no utility. In a traditional market, gold drop when economy goes well and goes up when investors need to find a refuge. BTC is the drop zone for fresh meat. Most of the BTC holders cannot think clearly regarding the BTC/BCH debate, they become completely irrational. This kind of behaviour leads to ruin, especially in trading/investment.With low fees, instant transaction, smart contracts, big community, user friendly apps, stable coin and a lot more to come, Bitcoin Cash has clearly a good future. I hope that someone will find my post useful. Cheers.
Over the last several days I've been looking into detail at numerous aspects of the now infamous CTOR change to that is scheduled for the November hard fork. I'd like to offer a concrete overview of what exactly CTOR is, what the code looks like, how well it works, what the algorithms are, and outlook. If anyone finds the change to be mysterious or unclear, then hopefully this will help them out. This document is placed into public domain.
What is TTOR? CTOR? AOR?
Currently in Bitcoin Cash, there are many possible ways to order the transactions in a block. There is only a partial ordering requirement in that transactions must be ordered causally -- if a transaction spends an output from another transaction in the same block, then the spending transaction must come after. This is known as the Topological Transaction Ordering Rule (TTOR) since it can be mathematically described as a topological ordering of the graph of transactions held inside the block. The November 2018 hard fork will change to a Canonical Transaction Ordering Rule (CTOR). This CTOR will enforce that for a given set of transactions in a block, there is only one valid order (hence "canonical"). Any future blocks that deviate from this ordering rule will be deemed invalid. The specific canonical ordering that has been chosen for November is a dictionary ordering (lexicographic) based on the transaction ID. You can see an example of it in this testnet block (explorer here, provided this testnet is still alive). Note that the txids are all in dictionary order, except for the coinbase transaction which always comes first. The precise canonical ordering rule can be described as "coinbase first, then ascending lexicographic order based on txid". (If you want to have your bitcoin node join this testnet, see the instructions here. Hopefully we can get a public faucet and ElectrumX server running soon, so light wallet users can play with the testnet too.) Another ordering rule that has been suggested is removing restrictions on ordering (except that the coinbase must come first) -- this is known as the Any Ordering Rule (AOR). There are no serious proposals to switch to AOR but it will be important in the discussions below.
Two changes: removing the old order (TTOR->AOR), and installing a new order (AOR->CTOR)
The proposed November upgrade combines two changes in one step:
Removing the old causal rule: now, a spending transaction can come before the output that it spends from the same block.
Adding a new rule that fixes the ordering of all transactions in the block.
In this document I am going to distinguish these two steps (TTOR->AOR, AOR->CTOR) as I believe it helps to clarify the way different components are affected by the change.
Code changes in Bitcoin ABC
In Bitcoin ABC, several thousand lines of code have been changed from version 0.17.1 to version 0.18.1 (the current version at time of writing). The differences can be viewed here, on github. The vast majority of these changes appear to be various refactorings, code style changes, and so on. The relevant bits of code that deal with the November hard fork activation can be found by searching for "MagneticAnomaly"; the variable magneticanomalyactivationtime sets the time at which the new rules will activate. The main changes relating to transaction ordering are found in the file src/validation.cpp:
Function ConnectBlock previously had one loop, that would process each transaction in order, removing spent transaction outputs and adding new transaction outputs. This was only compatible with TTOR. Starting in November, it will use the two-loop OTI algorithm (see below). The new construction has no ordering requirement.
Function ApplyBlockUndo, which is used to undo orphaned blocks, is changed to work with any order.
When orphaning a block, transactions will be returned to the mempool using addForBlock that now works with any ordering (src/txmempool.cpp).
Serial block processing (one thread)
One of the most important steps in validating blocks is updating the unspent transaction outputs (UTXO) set. It is during this process that double spends are detected and invalidated. The standard way to process a block in bitcoin is to loop through transactions one-by-one, removing spent outputs and then adding new outputs. This straightforward approach requires exact topological order and fails otherwise (therefore it automatically verifies TTOR). In pseudocode:
for tx in transactions: remove_utxos(tx.inputs) add_utxos(tx.outputs)
Note that modern implementations do not apply these changes immediately, rather, the adds/removes are saved into a commit. After validation is completed, the commit is applied to the UTXO database in batch. By breaking this into two loops, it becomes possible to update the UTXO set in a way that doesn't care about ordering. This is known as the outputs-then-inputs (OTI) algorithm.
for tx in transactions: add_utxos(tx.outputs) for tx in transactions: remove_utxos(tx.inputs)
The UTXO updates actually form a significant fraction of the time needed for block processing. It would be helpful if they could be parallelized. There are some concurrent algorithms for block validation that require quasi-topological order to function correctly. For example, multiple workers could process the standard loop shown above, starting at the beginning. A worker temporarily pauses if the utxo does not exist yet, since it's possible that another worker will soon create that utxo. There are issues with such order-sensitive concurrent block processing algorithms:
Since TTOR would be a consensus rule, parallel validation algorithms must also verify that TTOR is respected. The naive approach described above actually is able to succeed for some non-topological orders; therefore, additional checks would have to be added in order to enforce TTOR.
The worst-case performance can be that only one thread is active at a time. Consider the case of a block that is one long chain of dependent transactions.
In contrast, the OTI algorithm's loops are fully parallelizable: the worker threads can operate in an independent manner and touch transactions in any order. Until recently, OTI was thought to be unable to verify TTOR, so one reason to remove TTOR was that it would allow changing to parallel OTI. It turns out however that this is not true: Jonathan Toomim has shown that TTOR enforcement is easily added by recording new UTXOs' indices within-block, and then comparing indices during the remove phase. In any case, it appears to me that any concurrent validation algorithm would need such additional code to verify that TTOR is being exactly respected; thus for concurrent validation TTOR is a hindrance at best.
Advanced parallel techniques
With Bitcoin Cash blocks scaling to large sizes, it may one day be necessary to scale onto advanced server architectures involving sharding. A lot of discussion has been made over this possibility, but really it is too early to start optimizing for sharding. I would note that at this scale, TTOR is not going to be helpful, and CTOR may or may not lead to performance optimizations.
Block propagation (graphene)
A major bottleneck that exists in Bitcoin Cash today is block propagation. During the stress test, it was noticed that the largest blocks (~20 MB) could take minutes to propagate across the network. This is a serious concern since propagation delays mean increased orphan rates, which in turn complicate the economics and incentives of mining. 'Graphene' is a set reconciliation technique using bloom filters and invertible bloom lookup tables. It drastically reduces the amount of bandwidth required to communicate a block. Unfortunately, the core graphene mechanism does not provide ordering information, and so if many orderings are possible then ordering information needs to be appended. For large blocks, this ordering information makes up the majority of the graphene message. To reduce the size of ordering information while keeping TTOR, miners could optionally decide to order their transactions in a canonical ordering (Gavin's order, for example) and the graphene protocol could be hard coded so that this kind of special order is transmitted in one byte. This would add a significant technical burden on mining software (to create blocks in such a specific unusual order) as well as graphene (which must detect this order, and be able to reconstruct it). It is not clear to me whether it would be possible to efficiently parallelize sorting algortithms that reconstruct these orderings. The adoption of CTOR gives an easy solution to all this: there is only one ordering, so no extra ordering information needs to be appended. The ordering is recovered with a comparison sort, which parallelizes better than a topological sort. This should simplify the graphene codebase and it removes the need to start considering supporting various optional ordering encodings.
Reversibility and technical debt
Can the change to CTOR be undone at a later time? Yes and no. For block validators / block explorers that look over historical blocks, the removal of TTOR will permanently rule out usage of the standard serial processing algorithm. This is not really a problem (aside from the one-time annoyance), since OTI appears to be just as efficient in serial, and it parallelizes well. For anything that deals with new blocks (like graphene, network protocol, block builders for mining, new block validation), it is not a problem to change the ordering at a later date (to AOR / TTOR or back to CTOR again, or something else). These changes would add no long term technical debt, since they only involve new blocks. For past-block validation it can be retroactively declared that old blocks (older than a few months) have no ordering requirement.
Summary and outlook
Removing TTOR is the most disruptive part of the upgrade, as other block processing software needs to be updated in kind to handle transactions coming in any order. These changes are however quite small and they naturally convert the software into a form where concurrency is easy to introduce.
In the near term, TTOR / CTOR will show no significant performance differences for block validation. Note that right now, block validation is not the limiting factor in Bitcoin Cash, anyway.
In medium term, software switching over to concurrent block processing will likely want to use an any-order algorithm (like OTI). Although some additional code may be needed to enforce ordering rules in concurrent validation, there will still be no performance differences for TTOR / AOR / CTOR.
In the very long term, it is perhaps possible that CTOR will show advantages for full nodes with sharded UTXO databases, if that ever becomes necessary. It's probably way too early to care about this.
With TTOR removed, the further addition of CTOR is actually a very minor change. It does not require any other ecosystem software to be updated (they don't care about order). Not only that, we aren't stuck with CTOR: the ordering can be quite easily changed again in the future, if need be.
The primary near-term improvement from the CTOR will be in allowing a simple and immediate enhancement of the graphene protocol. This impacts a scaling bottleneck that matters right now: block propagation. By avoiding the topic of complex voluntary ordering schemes, this will allow graphene developers to stop worrying about how to encode ordering, and focus on optimizing the mechanisms for set reconciliation.
Taking a broader view, graphene is not the magic bullet for network propagation. Even with the CTOR-improved graphene, we might not see vastly better performance right away. There is also work needed in the network layer to simply move the messages faster between nodes. In the last stress test, we also saw limitations on mempool performance (tx acceptance and relaying). I hope both of these fronts see optimizations before the next stress test, so that a fresh set of bottlenecks can be revealed.
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
In a few days segwit is activating so every mining pool needs to upgrade. This also applies to P2Pool. With P2Pool though being a decentralized mining protocol this is more complex than simply updating your mining software as P2Pool forms its own blockchain, the "sharechain", which is used to track payouts to miners. Any change to how P2Pool works which affects the validity of each share, as is the case with any upgrade to the chain being mined i.e. Bitcoin, requires coordination from the majority of P2Pool miners. Last year I posted a pull request to the main P2Pool repository with a patch to enable segwit compatibility. After testing on my part the patch was included in the Vertcoin P2Pool and has been working with great success making P2Pool among the largest Vertcoin pools. In fact after P2Pool's rise in popularity a second P2Pool network was introduced for smaller miners. Meanwhile big block populist Jonathan Toomim (jtoomim) has made a P2Pool fork and increased the share size limit from 50 kB per 30 seconds to 1 MB. While an increase was reasonable and in fact I included one in the segwit patch (to 100 kB) before him the excessive increase on jtoomim's fork is compatible with the BU vision campaigned by him and contradicts the decentralized nature of P2Pool. Now jtoomim has merged my segwit patch and made it a requirement [edit: albeit it can be manually overriden] to use btc1 (segwit2x) misleading users that his fork is a segwit upgrade.
Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
Greg Maxwell /u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream) has sent me two private messages in response to my other post today (where I said "Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream."). In response to his private messages, I am publicly posting my reply, here:
Note: Greg Maxell nullc sent me 2 short private messages criticizing me today. For whatever reason, he seems to prefer messaging me privately these days, rather than responding publicly on these forums. Without asking him for permission to publish his private messages, I do think it should be fine for me to respond to them publicly here - only quoting 3 phrases from them, namely: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity" LOL. There was nothing particularly new or revealing in his messages - just more of the same stuff we've all heard before. I have no idea why he prefers responding to me privately these days. Everything below is written by me - I haven't tried to upload his 2 PMs to me, since he didn't give permission (and I didn't ask). The only stuff below from his 2 PMs is the 3 phrases already mentioned: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity". The rest of this long wall of text is just my "open letter to Greg." TL;DR: The code that maximally uses the available hardware and infrastructure will win - and there is nothing Core/Blockstream can do to stop that. Also, things like the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union lasted for a lot longer than people expected - but, conversely, the also got swept away a lot faster than anyone expected. The "vote" for bigger blocks is an ongoing referendum - and Classic is running on 20-25% of the network (and can and will jump up to the needed 75% very fast, when investors demand it due to the inevitable "congestion crisis") - which must be a massive worry for Greg/Adam/Austin and their backers from the Bilderberg Group. The debate will inevitably be decided in favor of bigger blocks - simply because the market demands it, and the hardware / infrastructure supports it. Hello Greg Maxwell nullc (CTO of Blockstream) - Thank you for your private messages in response to my post. I respect (most of) your work on Bitcoin, but I think you were wrong on several major points in your messages, and in your overall economic approach to Bitcoin - as I explain in greater detail below: Correcting some inappropriate terminology you used As everybody knows, Classic or Unlimited or Adaptive (all of which I did mention specifically in my post) do not support "340GB" blocks (which I did not mention in my post). It is therefore a straw-man for you to claim that big-block supporters want "340GB" blocks. Craig Wright may want that - but nobody else supports his crazy posturing and ridiculous ideas. You should know that what actual users / investors (and Satoshi) actually do want, is to let the market and the infrastructure decide on the size of actual blocks - which could be around 2 MB, or 4 MB, etc. - gradually growing in accordance with market needs and infrastructure capabilities (free from any arbitrary, artificial central planning and obstructionism on the part of Core/Blockstream, and its investors - many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the current debt-backed fiat system). You yourself (nullc) once said somewhere that bigger blocks would probably be fine - ie, they would not pose a decentralization risk. (I can't find the link now - maybe I'll have time to look for it later.) I found the link: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/ I am also surprised that you now seem to be among those making unfounded insinuations that posters such as myself must somehow be "paid off" - as if intelligent observers and participants could not decide on their own, based on the empirical evidence, that bigger blocks are needed, when the network is obviously becoming congested and additional infrastructure is obviously available. Random posters on Reddit might say and believe such conspiratorial nonsense - but I had always thought that you, given your intellectual abilities, would have been able to determine that people like me are able to arrive at supporting bigger blocks quite entirely on our own, based on two simple empirical facts, ie:
the infrastructure supports bigger blocks now;
the market needs bigger blocks now.
In the present case, I will simply assume that you might be having a bad day, for you to erroneously and groundlessly insinuate that I must be "paid off" in order to support bigger blocks. Using Occam's Razor The much simpler explanation is that bigger-block supporters believe will get "paid off" from bigger gains for their investment in Bitcoin. Rational investors and users understand that bigger blocks are necessary, based on the apparent correlation (not necessarily causation!) between volume and price (as mentioned in my other post, and backed up with graphs). And rational network capacity planners (a group which you should be in - but for some mysterious reason, you're not) also understand that bigger blocks are necessary, and quite feasible (and do not pose any undue "centralization risk".) As I have been on the record for months publicly stating, I understand that bigger blocks are necessary based on the following two objective, rational reasons:
because I've seen the empirical research in the field (from guys like Gavin and Toomim) showing that the network infrastructure (primarily bandwidth and latency - but also RAM and CPU) would also support bigger blocks now (I believe they showed that 3-4MB blocks would definitely work fine on the network now - possibly even 8 MB - without causing undue centralization).
Bigger-block supporters are being objective; smaller-block supporters are not I am surprised that you no longer talk about this debate in those kind of objective terms:
bandwidth, latency (including Great Firewall of China), RAM, CPU;
At this point, the burden is on guys like you (nullc) to explain why you support a so-called scaling "roadmap" which is not aligned with:
simple, rational investment policy; and
simple, rational capacity planning
The burden is also on guys like you to show that you do not have a conflict of interest, due to Blockstream's highly-publicized connections (via insurance giant AXA - whose CED is also the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; and companies such as the "Big 4" accounting firm PwC) to the global cartel of debt-based central banks with their infinite money-printing. In a nutshell, the argument of big-block supporters is simple: If the hardware / network infrastructure supports bigger blocks (and it does), and if the market demands it (and it does), then we certainly should use bigger blocks - now. You have never provided a counter-argument to this simple, rational proposition - for the past few years. If you have actual numbers or evidence or facts or even legitimate concerns (regarding "centralization risk" - presumably your only argument) then you should show such evidence. But you never have. So we can only assume either incompetence or malfeasance on your part. As I have also publicly and privately stated to you many times, with the utmost of sincerity: We do of course appreciate the wealth of stellar coding skills which you bring to Bitcoin's cryptographic and networking aspects. But we do not appreciate the obstructionism and centralization which you also bring to Bitcoin's economic and scaling aspects. Bitcoin is bigger than you. The simple reality is this: If you can't / won't let Bitcoin grow naturally, then the market is going to eventually route around you, and billions (eventually trillions) of investor capital and user payments will naturally flow elsewhere. So: You can either be the guy who wrote the software to provide simple and safe Bitcoin scaling (while maintaining "reasonable" decentralization) - or the guy who didn't. The choice is yours. The market, and history, don't really care about:
whether you yourself might have been "paid off" (or under a non-disclosure agreement written perhaps by some investors associated the Bilderberg Group and the legacy debt-based fiat money system which they support), or
whether or not you might be clueless about economics.
Crypto and/or Bitcoin will move on - with or without you and your obstructionism. Bigger-block supporters, including myself, are impartial By the way, my two recent posts this past week on the Craig Wright extravaganza...
...should have given you some indication that I am being impartial and objective, and I do have "integrity" (and I am not "paid off" by anybody, as you so insultingly insinuated). In other words, much like the market and investors, I don't care who provides bigger blocks - whether it would be Core/Blockstream, or Bitcoin Classic, or (the perhaps confusingly-named) "Bitcoin Unlimited" (which isn't necessarily about some kind of "unlimited" blocksize, but rather simply about liberating users and miners from being "limited" by controls imposed by any centralized group of developers, such as Core/Blockstream and the Bilderbergers who fund you). So, it should be clear by now I don't care one way or the other about Gavin personally - or about you, or about any other coders. I care about code, and arguments - regardless of who is providing such things - eg:
When Gavin didn't demand crypto proof from Craig, and you said you would have: I publicly criticized Gavin - and I supported you.
When you continue to impose needless obstactles to bigger blocks, then I continue to criticize you.
In other words, as we all know, it's not about the people. It's about the code - and what the market wants, and what the infrastructure will bear. You of all people should know that that's how these things should be decided. Fortunately, we can take what we need, and throw away the rest. Your crypto/networking expertise is appreciated; your dictating of economic parameters is not. As I have also repeatedly stated in the past, I pretty much support everything coming from you, nullc:
your crypto and networking and game-theoretical expertise,
your extremely important work on Confidential Transactions / homomorphic encryption.
your desire to keep Bitcoin decentralized.
And I (and the network, and the market/investors) will always thank you profusely and quite sincerely for these massive contributions which you make. But open-source code is (fortunately) à la carte. It's mix-and-match. We can use your crypto and networking code (which is great) - and we can reject your cripple-code (artificially small 1 MB blocks), throwing it where it belongs: in the garbage heap of history. So I hope you see that I am being rational and objective about what I support (the code) - and that I am also always neutral and impartial regarding who may (or may not) provide it. And by the way: Bitcoin is actually not as complicated as certain people make it out to be. This is another point which might be lost on certain people, including:
And that point is this: The crypto code behind Bitcoin actually is very simple. And the networking code behind Bitcoin is actually also fairly simple as well. Right now you may be feeling rather important and special, because you're part of the first wave of development of cryptocurrencies. But if the cryptocurrency which you're coding (Core/Blockstream's version of Bitcoin, as funded by the Bilderberg Group) fails to deliver what investors want, then investors will dump you so fast your head will spin. Investors care about money, not code. So bigger blocks will eventually, inevitably come - simply because the market demand is there, and the infrastructure capacity is there. It might be nice if bigger blocks would come from Core/Blockstream. But who knows - it might actually be nicer (in terms of anti-fragility and decentralization of development) if bigger blocks were to come from someone other than Core/Blockstream. So I'm really not begging you - I'm warning you, for your own benefit (your reputation and place in history), that: Either way, we are going to get bigger blocks. Simply because the market wants them, and the hardware / infrastructre can provide them. And there is nothing you can do to stop us. So the market will inevitably adopt bigger blocks either with or without you guys - given that the crypto and networking tech behind Bitcoin is not all that complex, and it's open-source, and there is massive pent-up investor demand for cryptocurrency - to the tune of multiple billions (or eventually trillions) of dollars. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Regarding the "success" which certain small-block supports are (prematurely) gloating about, during this time when a hard-fork has not happened yet: they should bear in mind that the market has only begun to speak. And the first thing it did when it spoke was to dump about 20-25% of Core/Blockstream nodes in a matter of weeks. (And the next thing it did was Gemini added Ethereum trading.) So a sizable percentage of nodes are already using Classic. Despite desperate, irrelevant attempts of certain posters on these forums to "spin" the current situation as a "win" for Core - it is actually a major "fail" for Core. Because if Core/Blocksteam were not "blocking" Bitcoin's natural, organic growth with that crappy little line of temporary anti-spam kludge-code which you and your minions have refused to delete despite Satoshi explicitly telling you to back in 2010 ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1000000"), then there would be something close to 0% nodes running Classic - not 25% (and many more addable at the drop of a hat). This vote is ongoing. This "voting" is not like a normal vote in a national election, which is over in one day. Unfortunately for Core/Blockstream, the "voting" for Classic and against Core is actually two-year-long referendum. It is still ongoing, and it can rapidly swing in favor of Classic at any time between now and Classic's install-by date (around January 1, 2018 I believe) - at any point when the market decides that it needs and wants bigger blocks (ie, due to a congestion crisis). You know this, Adam Back knows this, Austin Hill knows this, and some of your brainwashed supporters on censored forums probably know this too. This is probably the main reason why you're all so freaked out and feel the need to even respond to us unwashed bigger-block supporters, instead of simply ignoring us. This is probably the main reason why Adam Back feels the need to keep flying around the world, holding meetings with miners, making PowerPoint presentations in English and Chinese, and possibly also making secret deals behind the scenes. This is also why Theymos feels the need to censor. And this is perhaps also why your brainwashed supporters from censored forums feel the need to constantly make their juvenile, content-free, drive-by comments (and perhaps also why you evidently feel the need to privately message me your own comments now). Because, once again, for the umpteenth time in years, you've seen that we are not going away. Every day you get another worrisome, painful reminder from us that Classic is still running on 25% of "your" network. And everyday get another worrisome, painful reminder that Classic could easily jump to 75% in a matter of days - as soon as investors see their $7 billion wealth starting to evaporate when the network goes into a congestion crisis due to your obstructionism and insistence on artificially small 1 MB blocks. If your code were good enough to stand on its own, then all of Core's globetrotting and campaigning and censorship would be necessary. But you know, and everyone else knows, that your cripple-code does not include simple and safe scaling - and the competing code (Classic, Unlimited) does. So your code cannot stand on its own - and that's why you and your supporters feel that it's necessary to keep up the censorship and and the lies and the snark. It's shameful that a smart coder like you would be involved with such tactics. Oppressive regimes always last longer than everyone expects - but they also also collapse faster than anyone expects. We already have interesting historical precedents showing how grassroots resistance to centralized oppression and obstructionism tends to work out in the end. The phenomenon is two-fold:
The oppression usually drags on much longer than anyone expects; and
The liberation usually happens quite abruptly - much faster than anyone expects.
The Berlin Wall stayed up much longer than everyone expected - but it also came tumbling down much faster than everyone expected. Examples of opporessive regimes that held on surprisingly long, and collapsed surpisingly fast, are rather common - eg, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Both examples are actually quite germane to the case of Blockstream/Core/Theymos - as those despotic regimes were also held together by the fragile chewing gum and paper clips of denialism and censorship, and the brainwashed but ultimately complacent and fragile yes-men that inevitably arise in such an environment.) The Berlin Wall did indeed seem like it would never come down. But the grassroots resistance against it was always there, in the wings, chipping away at the oppression, trying to break free. And then when it did come down, it happened in a matter of days - much faster than anyone had expected. That's generally how these things tend to go:
oppression and obstructionism drag on forever, and the people oppressing freedom and progress erroneously believe that Core/Blockstream is "winning" (in this case: Blockstream/Core and you and Adam and Austin - and the clueless yes-men on censored forums like r\bitcoin who mindlessly support you, and the obedient Chinese miners who, thus far, have apparently been to polite to oppose you) ;
then one fine day, the market (or society) mysteriously and abruptly decides one day that "enough is enough" - and the tsunami comes in and washes the oppressors away in the blink of an eye.
So all these non-entities with their drive-by comments on these threads and their premature gloating and triumphalism are irrelevant in the long term. The only thing that really matters is investors and users - who are continually applying grassroots pressure on the network, demanding increased capacity to keep the transactions flowing (and the price rising). And then one day: the Berlin Wall comes tumbling down - or in the case of Bitcoin: a bunch of mining pools have to switch to Classic, and they will do switch so fast it will make your head spin. Because there will be an emergency congestion crisis where the network is causing the price to crash and threatening to destroy $7 billion in investor wealth. So it is understandable that your supports might sometimes prematurely gloat, or you might feel the need to try to comment publicly or privately, or Adam might feel the need to jet around the world. Because a large chunk of people have rejected your code. And because many more can and will - and they'll do in the blink of an eye. Classic is still out there, "waiting in the wings", ready to be installed, whenever the investors tell the miners that it is needed. Fortunately for big-block supporters, in this "election", the polls don't stay open for just one day, like in national elections. The voting for Classic is on-going - it runs for two years. It is happening now, and it will continue to happen until around January 1, 2018 (which is when Classic-as-an-option has been set to officially "expire"). To make a weird comparison with American presidential politics: It's kinda like if either Hillary or Trump were already in office - but meanwhile there was also an ongoing election (where people could change their votes as often as they want), and the day when people got fed up with the incompetent incumbent, they can throw them out (and install someone like Bernie instead) in the blink of an eye. So while the inertia does favor the incumbent (because people are lazy: it takes them a while to become informed, or fed up, or panicked), this kind of long-running, basically never-ending election favors the insurgent (because once the incumbent visibly screws up, the insurgent gets adopted - permanently). Everyone knows that Satoshi explicitly defined Bitcoin to be a voting system, in and of itself. Not only does the network vote on which valid block to append next to the chain - the network also votes on the very definition of what a "valid block" is. Go ahead and re-read the anonymous PDF that was recently posted on the subject of how you are dangerously centralizing Bitcoin by trying to prevent any votes from taking place: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/ The insurgent (Classic, Unlimited) is right (they maximally use available bandwidth) - while the incumbent (Core) is wrong (it needlessly throws bandwidth out the window, choking the network, suppressing volume, and hurting the price). And you, and Adam, and Austin Hill - and your funders from the Bilderberg Group - must be freaking out that there is no way you can get rid of Classic (due to the open-source nature of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin). Cripple-code will always be rejected by the network. Classic is already running on about 20%-25% of nodes, and there is nothing you can do to stop it - except commenting on these threads, or having guys like Adam flying around the world doing PowerPoints, etc. Everything you do is irrelevant when compared against billions of dollars in current wealth (and possibly trillions more down the road) which needs and wants and will get bigger blocks. You guys no longer even make technical arguments against bigger blocks - because there are none: Classic's codebase is 99% the same as Core, except with bigger blocks. So when we do finally get bigger blocks, we will get them very, very fast: because it only takes a few hours to upgrade the software to keep all the good crypto and networking code that Core/Blockstream wrote - while tossing that single line of 1 MB "max blocksize" cripple-code from Core/Blockstream into the dustbin of history - just like people did with the Berlin Wall.
This solves mining centralisation[sic] by enabling GPU miners to be the leading-edge again. (Hopefully the next generation of ASIC miners will have learned their lesson, so we don't need to do this again.)
In a show of non-support User jcliff quickly states:
NACK. This renders hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment useless. It will leave a bad taste in the miners' mouth.
Taking the community by surprise, Bitcoin Core's Luke Dashjr entered the realm of Bitcoin Classic's github in order to propose the controversial change, which was quickly shut down:
Bitcoin Classic's Jonathan Toomim Stating:
if you think we should change the PoW function, going straight to Github is not the correct method. This is better discussed on Consider.it or reddit or something like that.
Jonathan Toomim later states:
I have unsubscribed from this thread. We will not be changing the PoW function in Classic.
Results of the consider.it poll can be found here:
It seems Bitcoin Classic's team is not even remotely interested in changing the POW algorithm choosing instead to honor the very miners who have helped to secure bitcoin for so long. (At least not without large community support and that does not seem likely at this point in time.)
Is a POW change in Core's future?
Being that this POW algorithm change proposal came from a Bitcoin Core developer, are we likely to see a bitcoin core POW change attempt in the future? The question of Bitcoin Core future POW algorithm seems to now be up in the air.
On one hand The developers of core seem to be against hardforks (which a pow change would require).
However when asked if Core would be willing to switch POW algorithms, former Bitcoin Core developer u/nullc later states:
The Toomin brothers, Bitcoin Classic's main devs are debating Core devs and trying to show them the light. It gets quite fishy at the end.
Join here: http://slack.bitcoincore.org Start somewhere here: https://bitcoincore.slack.com/archives/general/p1453096627008444 Some extracts: Michael Toomim [8:06 AM] Satoshi believed the only way to prevent control is to give everyone a copy of the ledger. [8:06] Give everyone an opportunity to vote. eric-ledger [8:06 AM] @mtoomim: I think you are delusional Michael Toomim [8:06 AM] Give everyone an opportunity to transact. anduck [8:06 AM] mtoomim: bitcoin classic is against that, too. [8:06] as you very well know.(edited) Michael Toomim [8:06 AM] We give everyone an opportunity to upgrade the protocol. Adam Back [8:06 AM] mtoomim: do you understand why the developers of bitcoin used to propose a HF but switched to a SF once it became clear that it was possible because it is safer and faster? Michael Toomim [8:06 AM] You can take part in bitcoin. [8:06] You can add yourself to it. [8:06] Express yourself on consider.it. anduck [8:06 AM] are you a bot? Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] Are you a bot? dts [8:07 AM] I'm convinced, I welcome our new pot smoking master James Hillard [8:07 AM] @opet: when did I ever refer to you as being part of the uneducated masses? Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] Do you wanna speak bot? Bleep Bleep Bloop! [8:07] 1010111 Adam Back [8:07 AM] opet: "it's an image and communication problem." this is agreed Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] What's your favorite wave? Mine's triangle. eric-ledger [8:07 AM] you sound like a cultist anduck [8:07 AM] mtoomim: quit advertising your platform Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] Haha I'm just stoned guys. Adam Back [8:07 AM] lol Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] Cultists do get stoned a lot. [8:07] But I'm just stoned. Adam Back [8:07 AM] mtoomim: are you serious? Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] You're mistaking correlation with causation. dts [8:07 AM] If any miners are here, please pay attention to @mtoomim words Michael Toomim [8:07 AM] Yes I'm serious. Do you not believe me? Test me! anduck [8:08 AM] mtoomim: so how much did you pay the miners? 0 or more Michael Toomim [8:08 AM] I'd love more attention. I love attention! [8:08] What? I am the miner! [8:08]https://toom.im Toomim Bros. Bitcoin Mining Concern Toomim Bros. provides hosting for bitcoin mining. Our mining center is powered by some of the most wallet- and climate-friendly power in the world. eric-ledger [8:08 AM] meltdown anduck [8:08 AM] as stated earlier, it's a valid concern that you may have paid miners. you offered money to other to do things that people have been doing for NO money earlier. Michael Toomim [8:08 AM] I pay myself every day. anduck [8:08 AM] @mtoomim: did the miners get paid to express support for Classic or not? Adam Back [8:08 AM] mtoomim: are you literally stoned? you may want to unplug for a while. Nicolas Bacca [8:09 AM] At that point I think the best course of action is to demonstrate to the miners that segwit works well with multiple wallets and that well, one team is slightly more serious than the other one. Michael Toomim [8:09 AM] No they didn't get paid. Duh. The miners have all the money. They are the ones who pay. dts [8:09 AM] It is legal in Washington State as far as I know taek [8:09 AM] @mtoomim: you keep trying to flatter us. We don't work for free. We are not impressed with the direction you are taking things and we don't feel inclined to work on your vision. Ours is in the process of being shredded to pieces, why do you think we will maintain morale and motivation? James Hillard [8:09 AM] I hardly consider a sub MW mining operation to be much of anything at this point. taek [8:09 AM] ugh anduck [8:09 AM] mtoomim: thanks Michael Toomim [8:09 AM] Yeah it's legal here. 1 Colin Delargy [8:09 AM] I don’t think I could think of something more off topic. 1 Michael Toomim [8:09 AM] @taek I don't give the vision. YOU give the vision. Come give it. [8:09] I just create a place for you to talk and listen. dts [8:09 AM] @mtoomim: you really aren't doing yourself any favors Michael Toomim [8:10 AM] I'm hosting the forum. eric-ledger [8:10 AM] this is insane p2phash [8:10 AM] funny though dts [8:10 AM] I hope this is saved for posterity Adam Back [8:10 AM] mtoomim: i dont think yes. i think you should go sleep it off. Michael Toomim [8:10 AM] This is great! I love this conversation guys! eric-ledger [8:10 AM] doe anyone know for sure he is the real Michael Toomim? Michael Toomim [8:10 AM] You are real fun. dts [8:10 AM] he verified his email as the same one on Classic Slack Michael Toomim [8:10 AM] Nobody texted me. [8:10] :stuck_out_tongue: gamersg [8:10 AM] mtoomim: If SW via SF increases effective block size to 2MB, why are you pushing for a 2MB HF (honest qsn) Michael Toomim [8:10 AM] Text me a random code at +++++++++++++ Adam Back [8:11 AM] eric-ledger: oh maybe it's a look alike account. dts [8:11 AM] why do you have an Oakland number Michael Toomim [8:11 AM] Because the people who voted aren't pushing for it. [8:11] I went to school at uc berkeley. Colin Delargy [8:11 AM] content style matches https://www.reddit.com/usetoomim reddit: the front page of the internet p2phash [8:11 AM] @gamersg: not a full 2mb of transactions really is it? anduck [8:11 AM] gamersg: that's been asked like hundred times. he refuses to answer. taek [8:11 AM] I do feel like I've been properly baited. @mtoomim: my vision is a cryptocurrency that is immune to political influence. That vision does not seem to be present in the current ecosystem Michael Toomim [8:11 AM] @dts are you nearby? dts [8:11 AM] that explains the pot Michael Toomim [8:12 AM] haha Yeah it does. [8:12] And acid judahmu [8:12 AM] we liked dts better as luke-jr dts [8:12 AM] I'm flattered James Hillard [8:12 AM] Is this what future bitcoin development conversations are going to look like? 1 dts [8:12 AM] Yes he is the real deal, not a troll, kind of unbelievable James Hillard [8:13 AM] This is insane oneeman [8:13 AM] tomorrow is a holiday taek [8:13 AM] :} dts [8:13 AM] He did go to UC berkeley and slack sends you an email to verify it oneeman [8:13 AM] as good a day as any to cut loose, I guess drdave [8:14 AM] joined #general Adam Back [8:15 AM] are we sure mtoomim is actually michael toomim? wasnt it toomim before? anduck [8:15 AM] it's michael toomim [8:15] changed nick to mtoomim Brian Hoffman [8:15 AM] What a cluster fuck Michael Toomim [8:15 AM] @taek There are politics in every social system. Our job is to improve them. That's why we made Bitcoin Classic. The problem with politics is that they get in the way, and so make political communication more efficient, so it gets out of the way. Adam Back [8:16 AM] anduck: well he said that, but what if that itself was a spoof? anduck [8:16 AM] @adam3us: the email looks legit, at least Adam Back [8:16 AM] mtoomim: what hashrate does toom.im have? Michael Toomim [8:16 AM] We are the first forum that can visualize over 1,000 opinions on a single page. dts [8:16 AM] less than 1% Michael Toomim [8:16 AM] We scale. Adam Back [8:16 AM] so email him a code see if he can answer it? Luke-Jr [8:16 AM] what's the invite link again? Michael Toomim [8:16 AM] @adam3us: We only have a small amount. Most of our capacity goes to customers who host with us. Adam Back [8:16 AM] slack.bitcoincore.org Michael Toomim [8:17 AM] We have 750 kW of power capacity. dino_m [8:17 AM] joined #general dts [8:17 AM] @btcdrak: should put it on the front page of bitcoincore.org :confused: Luke-Jr [8:17 AM] thx. what is the share rules for this link? dts [8:17 AM] it's posted already on there just hidden behind "contribute" Luke-Jr [8:17 AM] k, so public Michael Toomim [8:17 AM] So you can multiply 750 kW by the average efficiency to get the hashrate at our facility. kang [8:18 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:18 AM] Text me it's faster. Patrick Strateman [8:18 AM] @mtoomim: well divide by x and carry the... <1% oneeman [8:18 AM] someone in ##bitcoin asked a day or two ago if maybe bitcoin classic was just a viral marketing ploy for consider.it ... 2 Michael Toomim [8:18 AM] Probably anduck [8:19 AM] oneeman: well it certainly looks like so [8:19] mtoomim has advertised it like 10 times in an hour oneeman [8:19 AM] I thought the question was a joke, but now I'm not so sure anduck [8:19 AM] and nobody still cares about it. Michael Toomim [8:19 AM] And we're all a viral marketing campaign for bitcoin! 2 Patrick Strateman [8:19 AM] @oneeman: lold Michael Toomim [8:19 AM] Ok what am I not answering now? anduck [8:19 AM] mtoomim: read the log. [8:19] please. Michael Toomim [8:19 AM] Come on! Adam Back [8:19 AM] mtoomim: nice. yes coincidentally i had looked at your hosting service for some miners i had a while back. Michael Toomim [8:19 AM] It's so long [8:19] You talk fast [8:20] I've responded very well to everything I've been able to tackle anduck [8:20 AM] you're already deeming others to do the btc deving work for you, don't make us read the logs you should read(edited) Michael Toomim [8:20 AM] I want you to choose [8:20] There are a lot of options up there Patrick Strateman [8:20 AM] @mtoomim: Would you be OK with a world in which virtually all Bitcoin users run SPV clients and only a handful of trusted third parties operate full nodes? alie1 [8:20 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:20 AM] You get power, you can choose what I talk about! [8:20] Good question! [8:21] Ok, so I need to answer this well. Give me these numbers:
The percent of SPV clients
The number of full nodes
[8:21] I'll give you my opinion. James Hillard [8:21 AM] toomims hosting service is small peanuts in the scheme of things, I manage multiple MW scale large farms in multiple countries and even then have only about 1% of network hashpower Michael Toomim [8:21 AM] Good job James! [8:21] Congratulations! epscy [8:22 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:22 AM] Hey can someone get Greg Maxwell? I love that guy! Patrick Strateman [8:22 AM] @mtoomim: 100 full nodes run by say blockstream, coinbase, mit, etc etc everybody else runs spv clients Michael Toomim [8:22 AM] I want him to work with Classic! Adam Back [8:22 AM] mtoomim: i sent you an email to auth your slack handle here dts [8:22 AM] yeah verify Adam Back [8:22 AM] can you paste or type the code in dts [8:23 AM] otherwise bravo on excellent trolling taek [8:23 AM] @phantomcircuit: I don't think conversation with mtoomim is going to go anywhere. Michael Toomim [8:23 AM] uploaded an image: Cool! Add Comment dts [8:23 AM] it's listed as his email in the classic slack Adam Back [8:23 AM] ok then. that's pretty confirmed. Michael Toomim [8:23 AM] Fuck yeah it is! Oliver [8:23 AM] @jameshilliard you inadvertently did so when you referred to those voting on consider.it and supporting Classic as the "uneducated masses." After all, I didn't give up my anonymity and finally get involved with bitcoin dev in any way until Classic arrived on the scene. There are many more exactly like me who have signed up to finally have our voices heard and votes counted. Some, like me, are incredibly sick of (and saddened) by the Core devs' seeming ignorance of the fact that it's NOT ok to completely ignore the wants of the community. I'm here now, and I'm here to help. My greatest desire is to somehow help bring Core and Classic together with a compromise. I'd like to see collaboration and an understanding that the road map requires a lot more than Core's blessing.(edited) Michael Toomim [8:23 AM] That's like, real! [8:23] It'd be so hard for me to photoshop that in 50 seconds [8:24] Photoshop sucks [8:24] I can do better in omnigraffle [8:24] and built-in OSX screenshotting [8:24] @phantomcircuit: That scenario is fucked up, dude! Everybody runs an SPV client? Sounds like fucking fascist china man! Luke-Jr [8:24 AM] considering how quickly my PR for Classic was shot down without discussion... frankenmint [8:24 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:25 AM] I lived in china for 6 months man, it wasn't pretty with the government [8:25] I'm so glad the chinese are finding freedom with bitcoin eric-ledger [8:25 AM] @mtoomim: You should come back when you are not stoned; you are not helping yourself 3 Michael Toomim [8:25 AM] They need it! Luke-Jr [8:25 AM] lol dts [8:25 AM] uploaded an image: Here is his email listed in classic slack Add Comment Michael Toomim [8:25 AM] @eric-ledger: I'm loving this conversation! [8:25] I'm here to help you guys! eric-ledger [8:25 AM] well I do also love it James Hillard [8:25 AM] @opet: I didn't mean to imply that everyone voting on there is uneducated. Michael Toomim [8:25 AM] I want to make it easier to dev bitcoin! eric-ledger [8:25 AM] but it may come back and bite you in the ass Michael Toomim [8:26 AM] Haha [8:26] That would be fun! [8:26] Like a snake. Patrick Strateman [8:26 AM] @mtoomim: Do you not realize that scenario is exactly the one you're moving towards with classic? Michael Toomim [8:26 AM] Woah! No I don't! [8:26] Please tell me how that's happening! [8:26] How are we going to force everyone to use SPV clients? [8:27] That means that we have to force people not to run a full node. [8:27] Right now it's pretty easy to run a full node. [8:27] I run one on this laptop. [8:27] My laptop's only getting bigger and better every year. [8:27] And the democracy cares about this! [8:27] They won't let full nodes stop running on their laptops. elliotolds [8:27 AM] @opet: what do you think as this (proposed earlier by someone else here) for a compromise: in April we hard fork to 2 MB, then we do segwit later in the year, maybe October or something, but whenever Core is comfortable releasing it? (sooner is fine, even along with the April HF is OK if they want it then) Michael Toomim [8:27 AM] They want full nodes to run on their laptops! [8:27] They want it so bad! Patrick Strateman [8:27 AM] @mtoomim: so four or five tabs? 4 Michael Toomim [8:27 AM] I want it so bad! [8:27] I love bitcoin on my laptop! [8:28] It's like a girlfriend in your lap! [8:28] Isn't it? eric-ledger [8:28 AM] omg Michael Toomim [8:28 AM] Who wants to relegate her to the server room? dinbits [8:28 AM]
I'm here to help you guys! @mtoomim: Do you plan on saying anything helpful?(edited)
Michael Toomim [8:28 AM] That's for herems. [8:28] I support sexual equality! [8:28] @dinbits I want to be helpful! What would you like me to help you with? jdebunt [8:28 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:28 AM] Or help other people with? dts [8:29 AM] what he's saying is very illuminating to me 3 Michael Toomim [8:29 AM] @phantomcircuit: I once took 4 tabs and went free-diving off the coast of hawaii. [8:29] Kapoho tide pools on the big island [8:29] That was so great! [8:29] I saw fish world. [8:29] Like the clan of the little cute white fish with the red stripe that swish you left and right. [8:29] I came up speaking in a new style. 1 1 justino [8:30 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:30 AM] Every once in a while my words would disiintegrate into strange snap crackle popping, the sounds of fish world. [8:30] I called it a flubbergust. [8:30] It is the moment where your spirit veers into void and disappears. [8:30] It's when you are wrong. [8:30] In Bitcoin, we have a problem of admitting when we're wrong. [8:30] Because there's no data on it. elliotolds [8:30 AM] I wonder if this is some sort of Machiavellian plot, and later Jonathan will come in here and seem like the most reasonable person in the world in comparison 3 Michael Toomim [8:30 AM] We're giving you social data. [8:30] bitcoin.consider.it Nathan Cook [8:30 AM] shh, this is great Michael Toomim [8:30 AM] It tells you when you're right and wrong [8:31] So that you can learn [8:31] When you learn, you get better [8:31] And you get shit done [8:31] You can make changes to bitcoin dts [8:31 AM] I still can't quite believe it's you even with the proof Michael Toomim [8:31 AM] We are hardforking the blocksize limit to 2mb [8:31] Join us. anduck [8:31 AM] why not 6 mb? Adam Back [8:31 AM] i think it's him anduck [8:31 AM] it would allow more transactions Michael Toomim [8:31 AM] @dts wanna video chat me? Nicolas Bacca [8:31 AM] is there drug for everybody ? dts [8:31 AM] like my mind can't make the two parts fit together eric-ledger [8:31 AM] a selfie maybe? Michael Toomim [8:31 AM] Guys come meet me in tawk.space. I'll be online in 5 minutes. taek [8:31 AM] Things have gotten terribly off topic, I would like to request that people stop responding to the nonsense, and also stop encouraging it. There is more valuable conversation that is being blocked by the ridiculousness happening right now. Michael Toomim [8:32 AM] That's https://tawk.space. Use chrome or go home. dts [8:32 AM] let's rename this chat mtoomim's magical bus trip and make a new channel 4 kang [8:32 AM] Not before that selfie plz Michael Toomim [8:33 AM] hahaha jake7849 [8:33 AM] joined #general alie1 [8:33 AM] is this a joke ? jwade [8:34 AM] joined #general Michael Toomim [8:34 AM] Fuck! Tawk.space is down! Karthik!!!!!!!! [8:34] Can we make a group video chat in skype? [8:34] Oh a hangout
Hence, we say bitcoins have no value. Bitcoin Potential Now Litecoin Mining Pools Review.Lassen Sie die Finger von derartigen Programmen! The Best Bitcoin Mining Pools For Making Money. No, modern currencies are backed by the full faith and credit of nations, and while reasonable people can disagree about the value of the US credit rating, no reasonable person thinks it is zero.Best bitcoin ... Peer-to-peer Bitcoin mining pool. Contribute to jtoomim/p2pool development by creating an account on GitHub. After bitcoin and crypto markets saw some $100 billion worth of value erased in just a week, bitcoin bull and hedge fund multi-millionaire Mike Novogratz has warned confidence has "evaporated ... What is Bitcoin Mining? - Đào Bitcoin là gì? BitcoinMining.com. 382 lượt xem. 0 LƯU. Phạm Thu Giang Xuất bản Jul 18, 2019. THEO DÕI 69. What is Bitcoin Mining? - Đào Bitcoin là gì?-BitcoinMining.com. Danh mục Khoa học - Công ngh ệ. Tự động chuyển tập: 2:10. Sinh học là gì? What Is Biology? 8.220 lượt xem. 2:33. Khoa học sức khỏe môi trường ... Another Bitcoin Mining Firm Warns COVID-19 Pandemic May Harm Its Business. Apr 15, 2020 at 08:00 UTC Updated Apr 15, 2020 at 14:30 UTC (Shutterstock) David Pan. Another Bitcoin Mining Firm Warns ...
This shows how the fans in the rear doors of the rack cabinet vent the hot air without any noise. The Rack cabinet is a UCoustic 24U Active Maple Wood Rack Cabinet. Toomim Bros cooling system - Duration: 7:43. ... How to set UP BITCOIN Mining BY BITMAIN Antminer L3+ For Best Air Circulation - Duration: 3:22. Crypto BROS. 146,895 views. 3:22 . Crypto GPU ... Toomim Bros. Bitcoin Mining Concern 16,680 views. 7:43. Bitcoin mining Guest lecture at U of South Carolina - Duration: 40:40. Block Operations 3,969 views. 40:40. Crypto Mining Container Tour ... Toomim Bros. Bitcoin Mining Concern 16,619 views. 7:43. Why Gas Engines Are Far From Dead - Biggest EV Problems - Duration: 14:32. Engineering Explained Recommended for you. 14:32 👉James ... Toomim Bros. Bitcoin Mining Concern 16,696 views. 7:43. Unboxing & Setup Power Supply & BitMain AntMiner S5 - BitCoin - Duration: 7:45. Titan Group 134,189 views. 7:45. Bitcoin Live - MKR Listing ...