Blocksize Debate at the Breaking Point - Lets Talk Bitcoin
Blocksize Debate at the Breaking Point - Lets Talk Bitcoin
Bitcoin’s Block Size Controversy is Morphing Into a Debate ...
Scaling Bitcoin: The Great Block Size Debate by Brian ...
Making Sense of Bitcoin's Divisive Block Size Debate ...
Brief thoughts on the Bitcoin block size debate Richard ...
The Bitcoin Conspiracy (an enthusiast's perspective)
I keep coming across comments, especially in this sub, from people claiming that Bitcoin was created by the CIA or some government agency as part of the plan for the NWO and cashless society. I want to share my experience and try to clear up the confusion surrounding this topic. I first got involved with Bitcoin in late 2016 when I heard about it and got some while at a libertarian festival. Back then it was still very popular among the agorist community and was being promoted as THE silver bullet that was going to disrupt the global fiat banking system. Putting preconceptions aside, a new user might ask, "what's so special about Bitcoin? We already have digital currencies." Well, you only need to read the first page of the whitepaper to discover what the original intent of Bitcoin was. It most definitely was not intended to be a tool for central banks to subjugate the world to a centralized global currency. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the full whitepaper here. When I first learned about Bitcoin, it forced me to learn about economics, then the Federal Reserve, then one by one the dominoes fell and down the conspiracy rabbit hole I went. In 2017 (actually it started a few years earlier, but I wasn't paying attention back then) there was a very heated debate in the Bitcoin community regarding scaling. I'll try to break it down simply: In the very early days, when Bitcoin was just a project being worked on by a few very technical people, no one knew about it. All it took was a handful of people running the software on their laptops to mine new coins. Since there was not much computing power on the network, it meant there could easily be a spam attack where a malicious user could join the network and generate many gigabytes of spam transactions that would overload and crash the network. To prevent this, Satoshi implemented a limit of 1MB per block, to protect the network until there was enough computing power to be able to handle larger blocks. This measure worked, and Bitcoin grew exponentially. Satoshi vanished in 2010, after WikiLeaks attracted unwanted attention to the project by accepting Bitcoin donations. He left clear instructions for his successors that the 1MB block size limit was meant to be increased once the network could support high levels of user traffic. At the time, there still was not much use, so it wasn't until around 2014 that blocks started hitting the 1MB cap and all of a sudden users had to compete (by paying higher transaction fees) in order to get their transaction mined into the next block. Up until then, sending a Bitcoin transaction would cost $0.0001 (hundredth of a penny) or less, no matter if you were sending $0.10 or $1,000,000. Now, since block space was limited, fees started to rise, as miners would only include the transactions with the highest fees. Over the next couple years, transaction fees went up dramatically, at times reaching as high as $100 to send a single transaction. The solution was obvious - raise the block size limit. But this led to a heated debate, and this is where the conspiracy became obvious to those who were paying attention. Since Bitcoin was decentralized and open source, anyone could contribute, but certain people controlled the commit access to the github repo, and it became apparent that those individuals had been compromised, as any and all mention of increasing the block size was met with fierce resistance. There was a misinformation campaign to discredit anyone arguing for larger blocks. The argument was that larger blocks would mean users could not run the software on their low-power personal devices and laptops; that by increasing the block size it would lead to mining centralization. Well, if you read the whitepaper linked above, you'll see that Satoshi predicted this. He knew mining would eventually be left to "specialized server farms" while normal users could use what he termed Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) wallets. But this point was consistently shot down in the community, and especially on /bitcoin. There was a MASSIVE censorship campaign in the bitcoin subreddit that continues to this day where anyone who questions the official narrative or even asks a basic technical question is immediately banned. /bitcoin today is nothing but a cesspit of price memes and misinformation. Go to /btc for the uncensored discussions (but beware of trolls). In 2017 the debate was finally settled, sort of. Now known as "Bitcoin Core" (the name of the official Bitcoin software), the developers implemented a change known as SegWit (Segregated Witness) which fundamentally altered the way the software validates transactions. It was implemented as a "soft fork" rather than a "hard fork". I'll explain the difference. In a fork, the network comes to a consensus on new rules that all participants must follow. In a hard fork, the changes are non-backwards compatible, so all users must update their software or else be left behind on a dead network. Hard forks happen all the time in software development, but in the case of SegWit, the developers refused to make any non-backwards compatible changes for fear it might alienate users. Again, another unfounded fear. "We can't ever upgrade the technical capabilities of the network (such as the block size) because some people might not go along with it." All kinds of mental gymnastics were performed to justify their refusal to increase the block size, and there was nothing anyone could do about it except fork as an independent project. The 1MB block limit is now essentially set in stone for BTC. So in August 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard forked by increasing the block size limit to 8MB, along with some other changes. Fast forward to December 2017 and Bitcoin was at its all time high of nearly $20,000. But fees were also astronomical and because of the 1MB block size limit, a huge backlog formed, and some people had to wait days or even weeks for their transaction to confirm. If anyone was trying to cash out into fiat and didn't want to pay a $100 transaction fee, by the time their transaction got confirmed the price had already crashed. This event was largely responsible for the bear market of 2018. Everything that happened was predicted by those who knew what was going on. A company called Blockstream had essentially wrestled control of Bitcoin from the original developers and shut them out or gained control over them, and started working on turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for their product called Lightning Network. LN is a complicated topic that I don't want to get into, but essentially it's a framework that recreates all the same problems inherent in the banking system that Bitcoin was meant to solve. Blockstream's goal is to profit from creating, and then "solving" those problems by charging users fees for all kinds of custodial services. In my personal opinion, it's obvious that the original Bitcoin project has been hijacked and repurposed into a tool for the central banks. The propaganda is being pushed in some conspiracy circles that Bitcoin was created BY the central banks in order to discourage people from researching the true history. What is now commonly called "Bitcoin" is not the original project, but a Trojan horse. The project that most closely follows the original design is Bitcoin Cash, and that is where almost all organic development is happening, and personally I feel that it's picking up steam lately as more people wake up to what's happening in the economy right now. Unfortunately most people are still unaware of how fundamentally broken BTC is now and so as new users run toward cryptocurrency to escape the dollar collapse, most will fall straight into the trap and be stuck with BTC that they won't be able to use without paying exorbitant fees and/or submitting to the very same tracking system they are trying to get away from. This is a very deep rabbit hole but I think I've written enough for now. I hope this info helps people make sense of what's going on with Bitcoin. I know it's confusing enough even without so much deception taking place so hopefully this helps. Read the Bitcoin FAQ over on /btc.
Let's discuss the 'one chain or none approach' and BSV winning narrative - aside from CSW!
It's been a bit quiet on here, and since a lot of things are up in the air about the court case currently, I thought I would start a discussion that is largely unrelated to CSW except for in addressing some of the broadly accepted statements and predictions for the longer term performance of BSV. I wanted to make this thread because there have been fragmented discussions on this that I have found interesting and engaging, and I would like to put it in one place. I think it also addresses a very key point which I believe both sides will agree on - the 'survival' of BSV regardless of whether CSW is Satoshi. I feel there are a few key areas around which this revolves so I will attempt to capture them below and hopefully we can address each one and why it could/couldn't leave BSV as the sole survivor without it descending into bickering.
The whole bitcoin whitepaper narrative, and the flaws of other chains, in particular bitcoin core and cash. Aside from interpretations of the whitepaper, a lot of this narrative is based on things that BTC or other chains have done wrong which prevent scaling. My issues with this argument are primarily that some the 'facts' that are used as an argument against BTC are basically not true. Blocks are not actually capped at 1MB, Segwit does not break the chain of digital signatures and non segwit nodes can still verify transactions that have happened using segwit. Obviously segwit didn't fix all the problems it was meant to and the lightning network is awful, but it seems like one of the first arguments presented against BTC in favour of BSV relates to the above, but just because they are repeated incessantly does not make them true. If core presented a valid scaling solution within certain parameters surely this is a huge setback for BSV. For other chains I'll be more general, but I think it comes across as ignorant to say that the system proposed in the whitepaper is the only thing that could ever work. What if something that does not yet exist comes along tomorrow (like it has done before) and is better. Ethereum has it's flaws, but on the back end it is a proof of work chain that has consistently achieved higher daily transactions and an order of magnitude greater functionality than bitcoin since some point in 2017 with the downside that the blockchain is bigger. This obviously does not phase the BSV camp, so why fork from something that was already 'on the back foot' with respect to the metrics that are hailed as important. I do not see BSVs unique proposition in this respect.
The crude approach to scaling metrics. I will concede this is more just a thing that annoys me which I want to address and for the purpose of my posts define, obviously people are free to disagree and discuss. A lot of the social media debates revolve around 'scaling' and for good reason. But I want to explore the definition of that word. To me, doubling a block size to double the number of transactions is not scaling, that is a crude way to increase throughput. Scaling would be fitting twice the number of transactions into the same block, for example. They are not the same thing, and crudely increasing throughput will have diminishing returns effects in relation to performance. The other scaling metric that annoys me is quotes in TPS when we're talking about bitcoin rules which is a new block every 10 minutes. Functionally this is completely misleading and should be looked at with respect to finality. If I had an account with a bitcoin in it, I could spam a bunch of 'valid' 1 bitcoin transactions to nodes, yet after the block is mined obviously only one of those can be valid. Daily transaction metrics are good, or unique address interactions etc, but quoting 'high' TPS just because a big block was mined after 10 minutes does not necessarily make that any more useful. I do not see BSVs unique proposition in this respect.
The legal compliance thing vs anarachist thing that is being pushed and about it being the 'only' legal compliant chain. This is basically nonsense, code is code, obviously it is not law. Code is a neutral ruleset which people choose to participate with and abide by. Nothing is black and white, one could choose to be completely legal things on any other chain and completely illegal things on BSV to the same effect. I don't think there is a BSV vs other chains argument to be made here from either perspective. The law is the law, it doesn't matter which software you use to abide by it or break it with.
The decentralisation debate. I have less to say on this one but I don't think it's a compelling case for any approach as being objectively better or worse. Decentralisation is a spectrum and there is no universal sweet spot. On one end we have the 'everyone run a node' approach and on the other end we have host everything on AWS. BSV is somewhere in the middle of this, no one knows what the 'correct' amount of decentralisation is for general purposes so I do not see how it can be claimed that BSV has an optimal approach as long as it remains functional.
This is my personal point of greatest interest. I wouldn't say I'm a die hard supporter of any chain in particular, so I do think it is a worthwhile experiment trying the big block approach to see what happens. The issue is the assumption that this is the correct and best solution for doing everything on the blockchain. This leads me to the thinking that BSV is getting stuck in a 'jack of all trades - master of none' scenario. Whilst this means it may perform 'fine' functionally at the moment, it feels that all things equal, it may not survive long term and will certainly never be the dominant chain because there will always be a better alternative for a specific purpose, four general examples that I can think of below:
Security of a significant transaction. Lets say a house purchase, if I had to choose a chain I would obviously choose BTC because it has the greatest hashrate by orders of magnitude. I will happily pay a fee and wait for a few confirmations to know that as far as blockchains go, my transaction is as final as possible. Obviously this example uses current state of things, but obviously this use case will always go to the most secure chain, which could be anything. I cannot see a compelling case for this becoming BSV.
Microtransactions. I agree this is very important, and this narrative is pushed a lot in BSV. The problem is, there are plenty of chains currently that allow fast transactions with finality in seconds that are literally fee free. Whilst it is true that BSV can do really cheap transactions, what is the point when there is a faster and cheaper alternative. The same applies to SPV and 0-conf, while they might be 'fine' most of the time, why rely on them when you don't have to. Whilst there are more concerns over security for these fast and free chains, if we're talking beer money or whatever it's less of an issue if you're paying for convenience. This sort of echoes what Craig said in the bitcoin vision video from the other day that I agree with, except for the BSV part, so again I don't think this is a compelling case for only BSV, in fact I already think it is on the back foot.
Privacy. It's a controversial topic for sure, but the fact remains that people will sometimes for whatever reason want to be able to transact privately and for illicit reasons. BSV does not intend to cater for this, but there is a market for this regardless, and a number of chains that offer it to varying degrees.
Smart contracts. Another big one which encompasses a lot of things from tokens to actual contracts to provably fair gaming and gambling. There is already a host of account based chains with far more advanced functionality and greater developer communities than BSV. The 10 minute block finality is also an issue here, as for many of the above you presumably will want finality to transactions. I know BSV is expanding the 'smart contract' capabilities but I do not see a unique or compelling case for it to suddenly dominate or even make an impact any time soon. Once again, I do not see any kind of unique selling point.
So all in all, there is a fierce discussion aside from CSW about whether BSV is superior and can survive and thrive. I am obviously of the belief that the 'one chain or none' approach will not be the case, but I would be curious to here why people on both sides of the fence agree or disagree on the various points, and whether there will be one chain to rule them all..!
I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here
Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System" The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.) Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter. When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011. Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references. Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet. In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here. The TLDR is
"Theymos" gains control of bitcoin and bitcointalk
Theymos receives a 6000 BTC donation (worth in the low millions of dollars at the time) to develop new forum software. No software is developed.
a company is created, "Blockstream" whose mission depends on keeping Bitcoin's block size limit in place. Blockstream ostensibly plans to sell alternatives to using the Bitcoin blockchain when the blockchain becomes unusable due to congestion. Strangely, those alternatives all look suspiciously like "banking."
(2014) Trolling on social media pivots from "anti-Bitcoin" to "anti-raising-the-block-size-limit". Obstruction to raising the limit suddenly a serious conflict within Bitcoin Core development.
(2015) MIT Media Labs' Digital Currency Initiative hires Gavin Andresen and Wladimir van der Laan. Gavin and Wladimir are the two Core developers who have final authority over the Bitcoin Core software.
(2015) Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn become the leaders of a counter-Blockstream movement called Bitcoin XT. XT was a new Bitcoin client that would cause the block size to be raised if enough people used it.
(2015) Theymos famously begins banning everyone from Bitcoin who supports Bitcoin XT, or who speaks out in favor of raising the block size, or questions the moderation policy, etc. This temporary measure continues to this day.
(2015) Banned OG Bitcoiners try to raise awareness by creating an uncensored subreddit btc to expose the apparent takeover of the Bitcoin project by Blockstream
(2017) a compromise (bait-and-switch) is suddenly proposed from nowhere and suddenly gains widespread support: Segwit2X. This will raise the block size limit by 2X, but only after Segwit is activated. Segwit activates, but support for the 2X block size limit increase quickly evaporates.
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion. Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization." Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others. If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems? The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash. The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases. It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
Lessons learned - Crypto and Divorce - In January I was a millionaire thanks to BTC, then my wife divorces me and now I have $30,000 AMA
Crossreferencing u/nanoissuperior He wrote earlier today: https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a3n6uw/in_january_i_was_a_millionaire_thanks_to_nano_now/ Title: In January I was a millionaire thanks to Nano, now I have $25,000 AMA I was replying to his post, but my reply ended up being a bit too large as a reply and steered off-topic, albeit an interesting one. So I decided to make it its own post, because there may be a good lessons to be learned and hoping some will come forward with good information to be shared. I hope it can help anyone on this sub avoid the costly mistakes that I made. Here it goes: FLAIR: LEGAL (not in the list) ---- u/nanoissuperior are you who I think you are? I won't give out any further identifying clues, but I happen to know someone in the exact same position that could have written that exact same headline. If you read the first paragraph, you'll know if you know me. The person I know bought Nano really early, based on a tip from a friend. I got in much later. By the time he told me it had already spiked to the $5 range, when I ended up buying. I then sold in the $20's so it was a good buy nonetheless. We were former colleagues at a large, large software company somewhere in the PNW, I left the company to venture out on my own and try to launch some projects I had in mind and relocated overseas for a few years. We lost contact with each other during my time away, but we connected again during the market runup and started exchanging coin information on a daily basis during the big bull run of late 2017. That was a crazy time.... the market trend was a few degrees short of vertical for pretty much all coins! Hey, guess what? Now that I think about it, I could have written that same headline myself! In January 2018 I was a Millionaire too! Not with Nano, but thanks to purchasing a good chunk of Bitcoin in 2011 at $1.20 each. I ended up a single digit millionaire with what I had left in Bitcoin around January of 2018. And, just like you, today, from all that wealth, I have about $30.000 left, with little to show for. Can we call that even? Although my disaster was not caused entirely by market fluctuation; Mine is a more complex story and I am going to mention it, because hopefully, it could serve as a lesson to be learned for any crypto holder out there, so they don't make the make mistake I made: Don't trust anyone. Always be skeptical and watch out for your own interests. Anyhow, here it goes: After 5 years overseas, I had enough and wanted to come back to the States. My wife stated her preference to stay abroad, but eventually, she conceded albeit reluctantly. We chose a small town in CO to settle, and landed in November of 2017. We had plans to settle down and considered purchasing a home with my/our new fortune, based on the market price during that period. At the same time, I was also hesitant about the inherent tax payments due caused by such large liquidation. I was trying to have to pay taxes as far away as possible. So, I decided to wait till New Year's Eve and started liquidating my crypto on January 1st, 2018 right after midnight. This way, I would have 16 months (till April, 2019) to pay any capital gains taxes, and I was confident at the time that the market would give me that for free, especially at the pace that it was going. I have been an early adopter and have since then acquired the high levels of verification and trading limits per week, with many exchanges, but for a large sum like this, I needed several separate transactions, over the course of several weeks, especially wanting to do it with a US-based exchange that was linked to a US bank accounts, to avoid overseas wire transfers, meaning more fees. (Yes, I did look at all OTC options, but for reasons not relevant to the story, I couldn't make it happen, so I had to use the traditional Exchange channels for asset liquidation). My wife and I, initially had some fundamental disagreements on the gross amount to be spent and the type of property we should be purchasing. I wanted a smaller place, with a denser, younger community, where there'd be kids our son's age for him to play. She insisted that we should go big; we had been traveling for so many years, and we had not been able to call any of our past residences our home. It was time to settle and nest; She convinced me that we should own a property of our own that we would be proud of living in for years. One that we could own outright and would not easily outgrow. We ended up splurging and purchased in cash two luxury cars for ourselves and set our sights on a large dream house in the city's Golf & Country Club, free and clear, for us and our two kids. I don't even play golf, nor do I even like it, but, if it makes her happy and it is within the safe margins of making it happen, I figured, why not? My concerns were largely financial and the numbers were adding up. It was a bit tight against my personal safe margins, but, at the same time, I was imagining to never have to make, or even have to think about, a car or home mortgage payment ever again! Bitcoin is on a roll and there is no sign of it stopping. Fine. Let's do it, before I change my mind. Now, I admit I was extremely lucky with choosing the time of when to sell the assets. I had no clue the market would take a dive in February, and so it seemed to many that I had timed the market perfectly, selling most of my coins in the first two weeks of January of 2018. Many called me a genius for selling at the very top, as if I had some sort of wisdom to know when it would drop; the truth is much less flattering; it was nothing but dumb luck, based on me wanting to pay taxes in 2018 and defer to 2019. Awesome, well done! Yeah? well, slow down, son, not so fast. So, I gather the 7-digit lumpsum in January 2018 and we write a check for the full amount at closing in February on the property of her dreams. A property that could easily be showcased on a luxury Real Estate magazine cover. Also, remember we had just moved back to the United States with just a few suitcases each from overseas. We had no furniture, kitchenware, curtains, TV's, bed sheets, winter clothing and so many other essential things that one usually purchases over time, but which we now had to purchase all at once. Not a problem, Bitcoin had dropped slightly but still well above $15k, I believe, at the time. And, earlier, in January, I had diligently taken this expense into account and effortlessly set aside a small fortune for equipping such a large house with everything we would ever need, brand new. It seemed we were protagonists of one of the Home Makeover Shows. Finally, after working day and night, prepping the house non-stop for days and when every piece of furniture had finally arrived, been unpacked and carried to its corresponding room, it seemed most of the essentials were in place and the hard work was done. I longed for pouring myself a Scotch and to finally sit down and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I head downstairs to the dedicated walk-in, cigar-humidor / wine / Scotch cellar in the basement and grab the better bottle of Whisky of the few bottles of Scotch that I had bought earlier in the week. On my way up, I remember feeling a sense of calm, combined with a glow of excitement and this undescribable profound inner peace, all at once. This was such a rare, natural, non-drug induced high that I had never experienced. It felt so good! This sense of accomplishment of achieving that one thing I had been chasing and longing for my entire life. I had expected I would be chasing this goal for the next 15-20 years, and yet, here it was. No, where I was, was even better than expected! A place where not even my parents, who still have to make their monthly mortgage payments. I had done it! With a smile from ear to ear, I take a deep breath of relief and while looking around the property, I think to myself: "It's perfect, everything is in place and I can finally call this our home. We are so lucky and we are going to live a great life. A life that few can only dream of. So many concerns will be lifted and become redundant. Everything will be better. I'll start a fire in one of our two fireplaces and I am going to begin enjoying my semi-retired life with the first sip of my drink. That will be the official start of our new life". I head over to the kitchen to get a glass and some ice cubes, while I struggle to find which one is the freezer among the many drawers in the kitchen. It was then when I notice a handwritten note placed front and center on the kitchen counter. It is from my wife and read: "There is no easy way to say this, so I am just going to say it..... I want to legally divorce [ ...]". It continued saying that she had taken our son, and had unequivocally decided to leave me. She had already filed the paperwork for divorce and that I should expect to be served in the morning. My bliss had lasted less than 5 minutes and in less than two seconds, it turned dark, somber and I saw it all crumbling down in front of me. Like a long-awaited rocket launch, years in preparation, which then unexpectedly explodes on the launch pad during the countdown. My stomach, heart and everything in my body just sank and melted into one ball of poison in my core. I felt like throwing up. I was completely blindsided; she had played the game all along, not giving me the slightest hint of what was being concocted in the background. She had already engaged with her lawyers weeks beforehand. Her mother was already in town from another state to help out with I don't know what. I had been gaslighted and was threatened by her that I needed to see a psychiatrist due to a change in my temper that I had supposedly developed - my temper was awesome: with BTC at that price? Everything was perfect! But I obeyed and went anyhow (this would later fit her story that she had to leave with the child because she feared for her safety due to my supposed temper for which I was under treatment, therefore, I must have this temper problem, see?). Also, the purchase of the overpriced home also seemed clearly premeditated: Price was the main driver of the decision making; not location, demographics, taxes, etc. It was the wrong neighborhood for us (people much older than us, retired, golfers and no kids the same age as our son to play with). Our house happened to also be the most expensive in the neighborhood. I can see it all so clearly now. See, your crypto coins on the blockchain, are not within the US court's jurisdiction (or, at least, it's quite debatable - a gray area - ask me for the seed and I can tell you that I may have the seed, or that I may not have the seed, I may have the wrong seed, I may have forgotten it, I may have lost it - you can't prove I did not forget, or lost it, etc). However, once it is in FIAT in a bank, or invested in a property, the courts can rule on the asset(s), freeze, disburse or order a sale of the property, etc. It's done all the time. Also, the coins were technically mine, and by definition private property (not to be divided during the divorce) as they were acquired before the marriage. I could not prove its origins (I bought many of them via direct messaging members on Bitcointalk.org and mining rather than exchanges, so no records, receipts or nothing to prove otherwise: the big exchanges like BitStamp and Coinbase didn't start operations till 2013, if I m not mistaken. Instead, I would talk to one of the forum members offering coins we'd agree on a price, I'd send a check to wherever the individual seller instructed me to (Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, UK. etc) and the coins would be deposited to whatever address I provided. Yes, it was quite crude at the time. However, once I converted my coins to cash and used that cash to buy a property for the benefit of the family, it became common property and thus she then had rights to a portion of it when divided between the two parties should a divorce occur - which ended up being almost 3/4 of all assets. I was robbed in broad daylight. By the one person, I trusted with my life. The one you should trust with your life. Your life partner. And while I was in complete denial, trying to bargain, I waited too long to obtain good legal representation. When I finally ended up getting a lawyer, I was quite distraught and I clearly did not do the proper research and this resulted in a less than stellar performance and detrimental to me at many key steps in the process. I had to switch legal representation right before mediation and I can't blame my new lawyer either, as (s)he did not have the required time to catch up on all the details, (s)he did his/her best, but I was ultimately strongarmed into conceding my soon-to-be-ex-wife to let her return to the house, in exchange to obtain 50% of my son's custody, with serious and strict clauses I had to abide by. So, I had to move out, find a hole in the wall in a student apartment, pay my rent and pay our kids pre-school, while she lives grandiose, without monthly payments in the country club, till the house sells, which will likely be in the spring of next year. Nice! Due to my delay, legal mishandling and somehow every other element in her favor, she inexplicably ended up with around 3/4 of the worth of all assets, free and clear, no taxes due. Mind you, she has never financially contributed, nor made a single $ during our entire marriage. She has never worked and had $0 in her pocket when we married. She didn't even have a checking account, well in her thirties. She is no dummy; she is street smart, knows how to manipulate people, get her way with flirting and charm, while I am more intellectual and book smart. and She beat me hands-down. She is walking away with a sum of, not quite 7 figures, but close. With what I am left with from the sale of the house, I am responsible to pay for all the capital gains taxes from the liquidation to the IRS, which are due in April 2019. I don't expect there to be more left over than the estimated $30k mentioned above. Hate the market all you want, I made peace with the market and am keeping busy at hating my ex for a while for putting me in the same situation. She tripped me 1 yard before the finish line and pushed me in the prickly bushes, to cross it by herself. Go figure. When I am done hating her, I'll get back to rebuilding my life again from scratch. I am not worried, I have done it before. Just pissed, I was so close and that I was so naive to not see it coming. Sorry, I am not meaning to hijack the thread, just wanted you to know that others may have lost more than just "free" money; money we didn't really have to work for. We were the lucky ones. It is what I keep telling myself to stop me from jumping off a bridge. PS - Woah: Sorry for the wall of text; I was just going to write the first paragraph and ended up venting about my current situation. I know, I should take this issue to /depressed, /exes or /whereisthenearestbridgeIcanjumpfrom. Hopefully, this can be a lesson to those holding crypto and some can learn what NOT to do. I learned the hard way and was left with nothing. Don't be a nice guy. Don't trust anyone with your crypto. Anyhow, I am sure either our vigilant subreddit bot, or one of the mods will remove my post for not adhering to rule, and if not, I am sure that you fine people will downvote me to hell. Go ahead. Take away from me the little Karma I left too! Thanks! I learned many lessons, but here are some key ones [IANAL - any crypto-educated AL opinion appreciated here, thanks] : - Understand the concept of private property - property you acquire before getting married. INAL - this depends on the state legislation, but it is hard to prove with crypto, especially if you obtained your crypto through foreign exchanges, outside of legal jurisdictions, the petitioner might not understand or willing to invest in obtaining subpoenas and requests to businesses operating overseas, as this may result costly. - Get a lawyer who understands, or is willing to understand crypto, its benefits of being somewhat unreachable and how that can work for you. Don't let them shortchange you with: "well, let's just convert the rest to cash, because that I understand" type of reasoning. - If you do go to mediation, the above applies as well. This arbitrator or mediator needs to be one that understands the intrinsic details of crypto - for example, during the ATH, I bought 6 digits worth in $USD of Stellar. I used the very first version of the software, supporting Stellar on my hardware device, and put it all in a cold storage wallet somewhere around January. I routinely checked on my coins on the blockchain and they are there. A few months later, I try to access my account and the device returns a different public address, which contains 0 funds. I am still trying to debug this issue with the manufacturer, but the fact is that I was accused of hiding these coins or negligence and was demanded that I paid half of what was lost. or not lost, out of my pocket for money that I didn't have access either. I tried to explain it in the simplest terms, there are risks involved with using first come software. There is no 1800 number, mo tech support. no CEO, no, you can't call the BBB and complain, etc and no one seemed to be able to understand, nor willing to either. It became a huge roadblock for which I had to concede, not cash, but a concession, I was not wanting to concede. The petitioner leaned on the fact that I was either wilfully cheating or stupid enough to lose the coins and managed to create enough doubt in my character and integrity and there was nothing rational I could explain that she, or anyone else in the room would understand. Perhaps mutually contracting a seasoned crypto expert that can offer a neutral view and give his/her opinion might be worth considering. Andreas, where were you when I needed you? :) - Other examples were some coins I had bought in 2012 and gifted to some of her family's kids. I was holding these, till they would turn 16 for them to pay themselves their college, or so I told them. These coins were demanded back by the petitioner. Ok, I suggested that I would send them, but with a CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY value with a block height of let's say,10 years from now, out of fear that she would spend the coins and the kids would never know (they are toddlers). No one understood what I was talking about, I was made out the crazy one, I gave up, sent her the coins, unlocked and, just as I expected, within 20 minutes of receiving them, she spent $1200 worth of it (for a flight, I think). If you are the only one speaking your language, no one is willing to listen or make an effort to understand you. - It appears my coins were private property, which means, that I acquired them before the marriage and in case of divorce, if I have not moved them or used them for the common good of the marriage, then they remain mine. However, I liquidated them and cash ended up in my checking account to be used to buy groceries, cars and eventually a house, and it is then that they became common property. Only once they landed in my checking account on which she is named on. It appears that had I taken proper legal precautions with documentation, or a company/trust, where that money would have gone, instead of my checking accounts, elsewhere, I would have still been able to be the legal proprietor of the resulting cash. I can't quite remember the details, but it as something that was explained to me afterward, and I honestly think I just tuned it out, because it made me sick to know I could have held on to my wealth. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in? Again, much of the lack of information and every misstep taken was because of dealing with people that are accustomed to traditional assets and will not deviate from it. Crypto is different and is treated differently. It is so important to know the strengths and weaknesses when going into litigation about something that people don't understand. - Some more I can think of, but this post is getting way out of hand in size. Feel free to comment/suggest your own and I'll add more to the comments. Credits to: u/nanoissuperior Thanks for your post, it inspired me to write this one. Anyone, any karma you feels needs to go his way, for providing the source of inspiration, please give to O-OP. TL;DR: Wife, having contributed $0 during entire marriage, waited until I cashed out all my crypto at the top of the bull market in January 2018, for a nice seven-figure amount, and then immediately divorced me for the money. Edit: added TL;DR
What isBitcoinCash? The BitcoinCash subreddit is a forum dedicated to discussing the cryptocurrency Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The aim of this subreddit is to cultivate a space for constructive discussion about Bitcoin Cash. Intentionally disruptive behaviour and heavily off-topic discussion will be moderated accordingly. Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit rules. What is Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin Cash is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It's a permissionless, decentralised cryptocurrency that requires no trusted third parties and no central bank. With Bitcoin Cash you can safely and securely send money anywhere in the world, nearly for free. For more information about Bitcoin Cash, please visit bitcoincash.org. Is Bitcoin Cash different from “Bitcoin”? Yes! In 2017, the Bitcoin project and its community split into two. Perhaps the least controversial way to refer to each side is simply by their respective ticker symbols, BTC and BCH. While exchanges commonly refer to BTC as simply “Bitcoin”, Bitcoin Cash, usually represented by the BCH ticker symbol, is considered by its supporters to be a legitimate continuation of the Bitcoin project, and the version with the best chance of creating a globally adopted peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Why was it necessary to create Bitcoin Cash? The legacy Bitcoin code had a maximum limit of 1MB of data per block, or about 4 transactions per second. There was also a common sentiment among Bitcoin Core developers that non-backwards compatible upgrades, commonly known as “hard forks”, should be avoided at all cost. This mindset severely limited the potential to introduce beneficial changes to Bitcoin, which were needed to prepare the protocol for mass adoption. Although technically simple, the Bitcoin community could not reach a consensus on raising the block size limit, even after years of debate. In 2017, capacity hit the 1MB-imposed wall, fees skyrocketed, and Bitcoin became unreliable, with some users unable to get their transactions confirmed even after days of waiting. An average transaction fee of $50 took place in December 2017. As a result, Bitcoin stopped growing, and companies such as Steam and Microsoft began dropping Bitcoin, because it was no longer a cheap and reliable payment method. In August 2017, a subset of the Bitcoin community decided to move forward with a proposed protocol upgrade, forking Bitcoin, and creating Bitcoin Cash by lifting the block size limit as a step towards massive on-chain scaling. There is now ample capacity for everyone's transactions on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain; low fees and fast confirmations are standard, and the network has been allowed to grow again. Isn’tbtc“the Bitcoin Cash subreddit”? It is worth noting that the btc subreddit came into use before Bitcoin Cash existed. It was originally created as a forum for open discussion about Bitcoin. After August 2015, btc gained a large user-base when the bitcoin subreddit began censoring discussion about raising Bitcoin’s block size limit. After the Bitcoin community split over the Bitcoin Cash fork in August 2017, the btc Bitcoin community naturally became the Bitcoin Cash community, as that’s where its proponents already resided, having been ousted from bitcoin by censorship. To this day, btc continues to offer a place for open and censorship-free discussion about all Bitcoin forks, with minimal interference by moderators. So how doesBitcoinCashdiffer frombtc? In July 2019, the BitcoinCash subreddit introduced a stricter moderation policy, following requests from the Bitcoin Cash community for an alternative and specific forum for discussing Bitcoin Cash. The intention is to offer a space that is more focused on specifically discussing Bitcoin Cash, as well as one that is free of the ongoing low-effort trolling that frequently takes advantage of btc’s principled commitment to free speech. This subreddit now offers all users a choice about the kind of forum that they wish to participate in. The hope is that, without the distractions that threaten to derail discussion on btc, BitcoinCash may be able to foster a more focused, inclusive, and involved conversation. The moderation logs for BitcoinCash are public.
Dude starts the thread but in bold writes: "NOTE: I'd like to request that we don't turn this into a debate about increasing the block size. It's a fine topic to discuss, but let's keep it separate from this thread."
Remind you of the Bitcoin Scaling debate when Blockstream was leading the charge? Nothing is off topic except discussing acutal scaling solutions at a 'scaling' conference.
Dude PM's me using the new Reddit chat feature to tell me I'm banned. Also throw's in a bashco passive agreesive jab of "I hope you're not having a bad day"
Dude then deletes his own thread... it's not even on his subreddit anymore.
Censorship oh my. I didn't even bring up increasing big blocks and he banned me. edit: thread is now back up on /BitcoinDiscussion most likely after being notified of this thread. I'm still banned and comments deleted.
Bitcoin is slow because the block size was left at 1MB - 2MB with Witness Data on the SEGWIT network - after throwing the entire "team" developer of GitHub and being occupied by developers of what is now known as Blockstream. This size has been maintained and keeps referring to two issues: Mining in China and the decentralization of the nodes or transaction validators that you point out in the article. Mining in China occupies a good part of the pie that miners distribute - in turn these are the ones that confirm the transactions and undermine the blocks - since 2011 and these Chinese farms are behind something that in the West call "The Great Firewall "that prevents a stable connection and slows down the propagation of the block, its mining and confirmation of the transaction over 3 minutes   causing a large part of the mining coming from China and therefore the power of 'Hash' decreased drastically affecting the security of Bitcoin; The less Hash the greater the possibility of being attacked by the Bitcoin network through a 51% attack that could cause double spending - although this gives rise to many debates since the 51% attack on an already "mature" network like Bitcoin requires a Considerable expenditure on mining equipment to control 51% of the mining power and receiving the block reward and the commissions for confirmed transfer on each block would make it less likely that said miner or mining group would like to make a double expense upon receiving sufficient economic compensation. So only a malicious agent with the intentions of destroying the network and assuming the total losses on the investment of equipment would be willing to carry out such operation. Possibilities exist but these are reduced by being the miner compensated for their activity. In the same references to Chinese mining farms but in another more economical field; Bitcoin has 21 million that are obtained through mining and commissions on transfers. These 21 million are achieved over time and from there it becomes a deflationary element as there is no possibility of printing more coins. The question of the Bitcoin block costly and the influence of Chinese mining goes through the Bitcoin subsidy or, currently called as, block reward: When a miner puts a block in the chain he receives the Bitcoin reward that is "inside" "of that block and which is currently encrypted in 12.5. Every 210000 blocks the reward is reduced by half so in less than a year (312 days from today ) it will be reduced to 6.25 so the miners will see their subsidy fall in half unless Bitcoin's price per coin increases considerably or the mining farms begin to close or reduce mining equipment thus decreasing the power of the network's Hash. If Bitcoin reduces by half every 210000 blocks the subsidy per block to miners will come a time when they can only live and maintain their equipment for transaction fees and in a Bitcoin network with 7 transactions per second and a commission that tends to Increase the higher the number of movements in it makes it unfeasible for miners to continue in said 1MB network and above all that people want to use this payment method that is expensive and slow - more even than gold paper - Because remember that Bitcoin born as Peer 2 peer cash, not gold-. Therefore, if in time the subsidy or reward is going to be 0 or unable to cover the mining equipment expense, it is necessary to find a solution if the developers do not want to touch the block size. And this goes through three issues already raised in BIPs and about the community: RPF (Replace By Fee), Lightning Network and Increase in the number of Bitcoin since the demand for Bitcoin does not rise because it offers a quality service but for security and above all for the manipulation of Tether (USDT) and the large exchange houses: - The RBF consists in the substitution of a transaction without confirmations for another that would replace it with a higher commission eliminating the previous one of the mempool - the limbo of the transactions to be confirmed in Bitcoin -. Although this system seems effective, it does not eliminate the long-term problem of continuing to maintain the reduced block, but rather removes the problem of financing miners, but does not eliminate it and, above all, kills the operation of Bitcoin transactions by not eliminating the increase in commissions that would distance the user from its use. In addition to more easily allowing double spending  . - Lightning Network is a side-chain or second layer, that is, a software development not implemented in the Bitcoin network itself and therefore is not an element of the block chain so this should already be repudiated since being a External and non-auditable element such as Bitcoin gives rise to "blanks" and therefore lack of existence and possibility of auditing accounts  and even the loss of money or cancellation of the transaction  . It also faces the problem of routing since in a network in constant change with the openings and closures of payment channels it is unfeasible to establish a total and rapid diffusion to the nodes of LN - other than those of Bitcoin - so it comes into play Another new element of this network is the watchtowers in charge of ensuring compliance in open channels and over the entire LN network of payments. Obviously it requires an additional cost to hire this service and it is not yet implemented  and taking into account the pace at which Lightning Network is developed, it is doubtful that it will become available . In short, to use properly - which is not successful - LN you need a node valued at $ 300 , a watchtower, have a channel open 24/7 and with sufficient funds to carry out transactions    . - The increase in the Bitcoin offer was raised fleetingly by developer Peter Todd   and will become an open debate in a few years when the mining block reward is low and the price of Bitcoin cannot be sustained only with uncontrolled printing of Tether and the manipulation on the price of the currency   next to the collusion of the exchange houses headed by BitFinex  and personalities of the world 'crypto'  - if he survives long enough to see that moment since they are already behind Bitfinex for money laundering . When that moment arrives I am sure that a BIP - Bitcoin Improvement Proposal - will be launched by Blockstream or directly notified of the measure destroying the essence of Bitcoin and the TRUE DECENTRALIZATION: THE PROTOCOL. This brings us to the second reason for the slowness of Bitcoin. The correct and true decentralization goes through the code and the team of developers and maintainers, not any other. The protocol must be engraved in stone  and that the action of the miners distribute and decentralize the network and they maintain the nodes and the transactions in a completely capitalist economic relationship. Investing in machines and communication improves access, speed and spread of transactions and blocks and makes miners true competitors as well as facilitating the transmission of money and all kinds of transactions . The decentralization of the nodes was the other great reason to prevent the increase of the block and therefore the speed in the transaction. It is based on a false premise to base the decentralization of Bitcoin - which is nowhere on the whitepaper - on the raspberry nodes. The dispersion of the transaction and all the stages of the transaction and the blocks depend on the miner and his team, as well as the search for excellence in communications to avoid orphan blocks - which are stipulated in the Nakamoto consensus and are part of Bitcoin and not they throw no problem in the transactions only in the resolution of the reward of the block that affects the miners and should seek greater efficiency - and reorganizations. The audit on the Bitcoin network can be perfectly performed without there being a Bitcoin node in each house, in fact it would cause the same routing problems that occur / will occur in the LN network. Decentralization should not go through nodes but through developers and to a lesser extent by miners. If a protocol is continually being altered by developers they have the power of the network and it must be in constant struggle by the miners through the commission on transactions. Due to these two factors, the BIP0101 proposed by the developers that Satoshi left in charge  and that originated the creation of Bitcoin Unlimited was rejected, later it was attacked due to its recent creation through DDoS attacks in a statement of intentions of the network Blockstream bitcoin   remaining as a residual element. These two reasons are the cause of the drowning suffered by the Bitcoin network - including many other elements that were eliminated and that corresponded to the initial code completely changing the nature and destiny of Bitcoin that are not relevant and I will not enumerate -, Any other reason is propaganda by those who want to keep Bitcoin drowned in order to enrich themselves with mining sub-subsidies and second-layer software like LN. Bitcoin has a structure similar to gold and can collect certain attributes of it but its destination in efficient and fast transmission as effective - among other transactions. Bitcoin was designed to professionalize miners and create a new industry around them, so mining centers will become datacenters  and they will replicate all transaction logs and even this professionalization will eventually lead to specialization in other types of transactions born new industries around you that will support the nodes according to specialization - Data, asset transfers, money, property rights, etc ... - Bitcoin scales to infinity if they leave the protocol FREE enough to do so. P.D: Core, since the departure of Hearn and Andersen, they know perfectly well what they are doing: The worst breed from the Cyberpunk movement has been combined with the worst breed of the current synarchy; The ends always touch.  https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgxcEOyWNs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h36m20s  https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/  https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf  https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4905430.0 https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds || https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/03/13/lightning-network-has-many-routing-problems-says-lead-dev-at-lightning-labs  https://diar.co/volume-2-issue-25/  https://blockonomi.com/watchtowers-bitcoin-lightning-network/  https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712  https://store.casa/lightning-node/  https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81906/to-create-a-channel-on-the-lightning-network-do-you-have-to-execute-an-actual-t  https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/  https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e  https://dashnews.org/peter-todd-argues-for-bitcoin-inflation-to-support-security/  https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1092260891788103680  https://medium.com/datadriveninvestotether-usd-is-used-to-manipulate-bitcoin-prices-94714e65ee31  https://twitter.com/CryptoJetHammestatus/1149131155469455364  https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/crypto-collusion-the-web-of-secrets-at-the-core-of-the-crypto-market  https://archive.is/lk1lH  https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8W00ssb7x5ZOaj8HKFdbfQ==  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0101.mediawiki  https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3yewit/psa_if_youre_running_an_xt_node_in_stealth_mode/  https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yebzi/coinbase_down/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306"
This FAQ and information thread serves to inform both new and existing users about common Bitcoin topics that readers coming to this Bitcoin subreddit may have. This is a living and breathing document, which will change over time. If you have suggestions on how to change it, please comment below or message the mods. What is /btc? The /btc reddit community was originally created as a community to discuss bitcoin. It quickly gained momentum in August 2015 when the bitcoin block size debate heightened. On the legacy /bitcoin subreddit it was discovered that moderators were heavily censoring discussions that were not inline with their own opinions. Once realized, the subreddit subscribers began to openly question the censorship which led to thousands of redditors being banned from the /bitcoin subreddit. A large number of redditors switched to other subreddits such as /bitcoin_uncensored and /btc. For a run-down on the history of censorship, please read A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /bitcoin by John Blocke and /Bitcoin Censorship, Revisted by John Blocke. As yet another example, /bitcoin censored 5,683 posts and comments just in the month of September 2017 alone. This shows the sheer magnitude of censorship that is happening, which continues to this day. Read a synopsis of /bitcoin to get the full story and a complete understanding of why people are so upset with /bitcoin's censorship. Further reading can be found here and here with a giant collection of information regarding these topics. Why is censorship bad for Bitcoin? As demonstrated above, censorship has become prevalent in almost all of the major Bitcoin communication channels. The impacts of censorship in Bitcoin are very real. "Censorship can really hinder a society if it is bad enough. Because media is such a large part of people’s lives today and it is the source of basically all information, if the information is not being given in full or truthfully then the society is left uneducated [...] Censorship is probably the number one way to lower people’s right to freedom of speech." By censoring certain topics and specific words, people in these Bitcoin communication channels are literally being brain washed into thinking a certain way, molding the reader in a way that they desire; this has a lasting impact especially on users who are new to Bitcoin. Censoring in Bitcoin is the direct opposite of what the spirit of Bitcoin is, and should be condemned anytime it occurs. Also, it's important to think critically and independently, and have an open mind. Why do some groups attempt to discredit /btc? This subreddit has become a place to discuss everything Bitcoin-related and even other cryptocurrencies at times when the topics are relevant to the overall ecosystem. Since this subreddit is one of the few places on Reddit where users will not be censored for their opinions and people are allowed to speak freely, truth is often said here without the fear of reprisal from moderators in the form of bans and censorship. Because of this freedom, people and groups who don't want you to hear the truth with do almost anything they can to try to stop you from speaking the truth and try to manipulate readers here. You can see many cited examples of cases where special interest groups have gone out of their way to attack this subreddit and attempt to disrupt and discredit it. See the examples here. What is the goal of /btc? This subreddit is a diverse community dedicated to the success of bitcoin. /btc honors the spirit and nature of Bitcoin being a place for open and free discussion about Bitcoin without the interference of moderators. Subscribers at anytime can look at and review the public moderator logs. This subreddit does have rules as mandated by reddit that we must follow plus a couple of rules of our own. Make sure to read the /btc wiki for more information and resources about this subreddit which includes information such as the benefits of Bitcoin, how to get started with Bitcoin, and more. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a digital currency, also called a virtual currency, which can be transacted for a low-cost nearly instantly from anywhere in the world. Bitcoin also powers the blockchain, which is a public immutable and decentralized global ledger. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever. There is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. With Bitcoin, you can be your own bank. Read the Bitcoin whitepaper to further understand the schematics of how Bitcoin works. What is Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin Cash (ticker symbol: BCH) is an updated version of Bitcoin which solves the scaling problems that have been plaguing Bitcoin Core (ticker symbol: BTC) for years. Bitcoin (BCH) is just a continuation of the Bitcoin project that allows for bigger blocks which will give way to more growth and adoption. You can read more about Bitcoin on BitcoinCash.org or read What is Bitcoin Cash for additional details. How do I buy Bitcoin? You can buy Bitcoin on an exchange or with a brokerage. If you're looking to buy, you can buy Bitcoin with your credit card to get started quickly and safely. There are several others places to buy Bitcoin too; please check the sidebar under brokers, exchanges, and trading for other go-to service providers to begin buying and trading Bitcoin. Make sure to do your homework first before choosing an exchange to ensure you are choosing the right one for you. How do I store my Bitcoin securely? After the initial step of buying your first Bitcoin, you will need a Bitcoin wallet to secure your Bitcoin. Knowing which Bitcoin wallet to choose is the second most important step in becoming a Bitcoin user. Since you are investing funds into Bitcoin, choosing the right Bitcoin wallet for you is a critical step that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Use this guide to help you choose the right wallet for you. Check the sidebar under Bitcoin wallets to get started and find a wallet that you can store your Bitcoin in. Why is my transaction taking so long to process? Bitcoin transactions typically confirm in ~10 minutes. A confirmation means that the Bitcoin transaction has been verified by the network through the process known as mining. Once a transaction is confirmed, it cannot be reversed or double spent. Transactions are included in blocks. If you have sent out a Bitcoin transaction and it’s delayed, chances are the transaction fee you used wasn’t enough to out-compete others causing it to be backlogged. The transaction won’t confirm until it clears the backlog. This typically occurs when using the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain due to poor central planning. If you are using Bitcoin (BCH), you shouldn't encounter these problems as the block limits have been raised to accommodate a massive amount of volume freeing up space and lowering transaction costs. Why does my transaction cost so much, I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be cheap? As described above, transaction fees have spiked on the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain mainly due to a limit on transaction space. This has created what is called a fee market, which has primarily been a premature artificially induced price increase on transaction fees due to the limited amount of block space available (supply vs. demand). The original plan was for fees to help secure the network when the block reward decreased and eventually stopped, but the plan was not to reach that point until some time in the future, around the year 2140. This original plan was restored with Bitcoin (BCH) where fees are typically less than a single penny per transaction. What is the block size limit? The original Bitcoin client didn’t have a block size cap, however was limited to 32MB due to the Bitcoin protocol message size constraint. However, in July 2010 Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto introduced a temporary 1MB limit as an anti-DDoS measure. The temporary measure from Satoshi Nakamoto was made clear three months later when Satoshi said the block size limit can be increased again by phasing it in when it’s needed (when the demand arises). When introducing Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list in 2008, Satoshi said that scaling to Visa levels “would probably not seem like a big deal.” What is the block size debate all about anyways? The block size debate boils down to different sets of users who are trying to come to consensus on the best way to scale Bitcoin for growth and success. Scaling Bitcoin has actually been a topic of discussion since Bitcoin was first released in 2008; for example you can read how Satoshi Nakamoto was asked about scaling here and how he thought at the time it would be addressed. Fortunately Bitcoin has seen tremendous growth and by the year 2013, scaling Bitcoin had became a hot topic. For a run down on the history of scaling and how we got to where we are today, see the Block size limit debate history lesson post. What is a hard fork? A hard fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules which is accepted by nodes that have upgraded to support the new protocol. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain to two separate blockchains (a majority chain and a minority chain). What is a soft fork? A soft fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules, but the difference is that nodes don’t realize the rules have changed, and continue to accept blocks created by the newer nodes. Some argue that soft forks are bad because they trick old-unupdated nodes into believing transactions are valid, when they may not actually be valid. This can also be defined as coercion, as explained by Vitalik Buterin. Doesn't it hurt decentralization if we increase the block size? Some argue that by lifting the limit on transaction space, that the cost of validating transactions on individual nodes will increase to the point where people will not be able to run nodes individually, giving way to centralization. This is a false dilemma because at this time there is no proven metric to quantify decentralization; although it has been shown that the current level of decentralization will remain with or without a block size increase. It's a logical fallacy to believe that decentralization only exists when you have people all over the world running full nodes. The reality is that only people with the income to sustain running a full node (even at 1MB) will be doing it. So whether it's 1MB, 2MB, or 32MB, the costs of doing business is negligible for the people who can already do it. If the block size limit is removed, this will also allow for more users worldwide to use and transact introducing the likelihood of having more individual node operators. Decentralization is not a metric, it's a tool or direction. This is a good video describing the direction of how decentralization should look. Additionally, the effects of increasing the block capacity beyond 1MB has been studied with results showing that up to 4MB is safe and will not hurt decentralization (Cornell paper, PDF). Other papers also show that no block size limit is safe (Peter Rizun, PDF). Lastly, through an informal survey among all top Bitcoin miners, many agreed that a block size increase between 2-4MB is acceptable. What now? Bitcoin is a fluid ever changing system. If you want to keep up with Bitcoin, we suggest that you subscribe to /btc and stay in the loop here, as well as other places to get a healthy dose of perspective from different sources. Also, check the sidebar for additional resources. Have more questions? Submit a post and ask your peers for help!
[Megathread] On August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559), a new altcoin called Bcash (BCH) has been created using Bitcoin's transaction history. Bitcoin itself continues to function normally.
What is happening?
In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559) a new altcoin was created from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Bcash" (BCH) or "Bitcoin Cash" (BCC) depending on which wallet/exchange you ask. In order to avoid confusion with actual Bitcoin and other altcoins, we recommend readers refer to the new altcoin as "Bcash" (BCH). As with all altcoins, Bcash is technically off-topic for the /Bitcoin subreddit. However, Bcash was created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of Bcash with some effort. Your Bitcoins are just as safe as they were before the chain split, but you should take care not to compromise your private keys if you wish to retrieve Bcash. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your Bcash, please be aware that consolidating your UTXOs will impact your privacy on both chains. In order to help readers navigate this confusing situation and minimize disruption of relevant content, /Bitcoin has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Bcash. If you are wondering how to retrieve your new altcoin holdings, please read the discussion thoroughly as your questions may already have been answered. If you don't see a similar question, please be sure to mention your wallet method and preferred exchange so that other readers can help address your concerns. You are also invited to submit new threads to the /Bcash subreddit if you so choose. If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet. A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Bitcoin Cash” (and Selling It) is a must-read for anyone feeling particularly lost.
But I thought we avoided a chain split?
For those of you who thought we avoided a chain split with the activation of BIP91 a couple weeks ago, here's a very loose summary of what happened on the Segwit (BIP141, BIP148, BIP91) front:
Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Bcash but with less safety precautions regarding replay protection
Despite all the progress we're making in scaling Bitcoin both on-chain and off-chain, the Bcash crew has decided to part ways with the Bitcoin project by creating a new altcoin. The key differences are that they are attempting to gut Segwit from their forked client, as well as increasing the deprecated max_block_size attribute to 8MB.
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]
Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign. Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that. In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod. Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down. This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks. Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing. The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc. Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
It's come to our attention that there have been quite a few posts over the past several days regarding Bitcoin Cash (BCC). This mega thread serves as a way for people to talk about it within a single post in attempt to try to help organize discussion around it. This doesn't mean BCC posts are not allowed in this sub outside of the mega thread. This thread is a fluid document which means that we will be adding/editing it as we go, with feedback from the community. This thread does not mean moderators of this sub endorse BCC, but simply is a way to help organize discussion around a certain topic as we have done in the past; see past mega threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 The following FAQ has been pulled directly from the Bitcoin Cash website https://bitcoincash.org.
What is Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin Cash is peer-to-peer electronic cash for the Internet. It is fully decentralized, with no central bank and requires no trusted third parties to operate.
Is Bitcoin Cash different from 'Bitcoin'? Yes. Bitcoin Cash is the continuation of the Bitcoin project as peer-to-peer digital cash. It is a fork of the Bitcoin blockchain ledger, with upgraded consensus rules that allow it to grow and scale.
If I own Bitcoin, do I automatically own Bitcoin Cash too? Yes. Because Bitcoin Cash is a fork of the ledger, that means you own the same amount of Bitcoin Cash as you did Bitcoin at the time of the forking block. However, if your Bitcoins are stored by a third party such as an exchange, then you must inquire with them about your cash.
How is transaction replay being handled between the new and the old blockchain? Bitcoin Cash transactions use a new flag SIGHASH_FORKID, which is non standard to the legacy blockchain. This prevents Bitcoin Cash transactions from being replayed on the Bitcoin blockchain and vice versa.
Why was a fork necessary to create Bitcoin Cash? The legacy Bitcoin code had a maximum limit of 1MB of data per block, or about 3 transactions per second. Although technically simple to raise this limit, the community could not reach a consensus, even after years of debate.
Was the 1 MB blocksize causing problems for Bitcoin? Yes, In 2017, capacity hit the 'invisible wall'. Fees skyrocketed, and Bitcoin became unreliable, with some users unable to get their transactions confirmed, even after days of waiting. Bitcoin stopped growing. Many users, merchants, businesses and investors abandoned Bitcoin. Its marketshare among other cryptocurrencies quickly plummeted from 95% to 40%.
Does Bitcoin Cash fix these problems? Yes. Bitcoin Cash immediately raises the blocksize limit to 8MB as part of a massive on-chain scaling approach. There will be ample capacity for everyone's transactions. Low fees and fast confirmations will resume with Bitcoin Cash. The network will be allowed to grow again. Users, merchants, businesses, and investors will return.
Why didn't Bitcoin raise the blocksize if it was easy? Some of the developers did not understand and agree with the original vision of peer-to-peer electronic cash that Satoshi Nakamoto had created. Instead, they preferred Bitcoin become a settlement layer. Many miners and users trusted these developers, while others recognized that they were leading the community down a different road than expected. These two very different visions for Bitcoin are largely incompatible, which led to the community divide.
Which Development Team is In Charge of Bitcoin Cash? Unlike the previous situation in Bitcoin, there is no one single development team for Bitcoin Cash. There are now multiple independent teams of developers. This decentralization of development (and decentralization of software implementations) is a much needed and important step forward.
Common questions /btc is seeing across the board are:
How can I secure my Bitcoin prior to the fork on August 1st? It's best to secure your Bitcoin in a wallet where you possess the private key to. As long as you own your Bitcoin (control the private key), you will have access to your Bitcoin on both chains post-fork. There is nothing you need to do.
Are my Bitcoin safe if I leave them on an exchange? If you leave your coins on an exchange and not have them in your own wallet that you have the private key to, then you are at the mercy of the exchange on how they handle and manage your Bitcoin. We suggest moving them off exchanges until the fork is completed. (thanks akira_fmx)
Where can I download Bitcoin Cash or review the developer open source code? The Bitcoin Cash implementation website can be found here: https://www.bitcoinabc.org/ (thanks todu)
What about Segwit2x, is that still happening? Yes it is, and at this time it has super majority consensus with 86% of blocks signaling for it. For those unaware, Segwit2X plans to activate Segwit on the main chain and then within six months hard fork to 2MB. (Agreement)(Resources)
I am stepping down as a moderator of r/btc and exiting the bitcoin community and entering the Ethereum community.
I am stepping down as a moderator of btc and exiting the bitcoin community. Thank you all for fighting until the end. I know I am going to get a lot of hate from pretty much everyone for this post, but I felt the need to post it anyway.
Why Give Up?
I think bitcoin is past the point of no return. There are a number of different routes that bitcoin could take this year, and as far as I can see, they all end up at the same destination; failure. I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this post, and I understand that. I have witnessed bitcoin being announced “dead” many many times throughout its history and I absolutely could be wrong, but almost every one of their predictions were based on a lack of understanding of bitcoin. I don’t feel my prediction is has a lack of understanding. If I am wrong, then I feel it will be through sheer luck that bitcoin survives. I was a bitcoin early adopter in 2011 and have invested far more time into bitcoin than is reasonable. I truly hope bitcoin does survive, but what I think will happen is not predicated on what I want to happen.
How might bitcoin fall?
I am not going to go through everything that has lead us up to this point. Many of your are well aware of what has brought us here. Bitcoin up until the beginning of 2014 was an unparalleled success. For those of you who weren’t around at the time, there was a huge amount of excitement in the community at all times. It felt like every month there was some announcement that had a positive impact on bitcoin. A new major company offering bitcoin payments, a bitcoin company offering a new service, a new piece of software being added to clients to make them more useful. Bitcoin was making continual progress and the community was unified. Compare the situation back then to day. We have now had 2 years of stagnation, and in many cases degradation of the network.
The network is now slow and expensive (and getting slower and more expensive), companies have been leaving bitcoin at an exponential rate. No new major companies have adopted bitcoin and there are no signs of this changing in the future. The community is irreparably divided and is at war with itself. Development has stalled. Where bitcoin has stalled, other cryptocurrencies have been making enormous ground. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum. It has competition. Other cryptocurrencies already offer significantly more advance features than bitcoin. The only thing bitcoin has left over other cryptocurrencies is it’s network effect. The inertia of network effect is truly enormous. Bitcoin has been coasting on it for 2 years now. Technology develops rapidly though, and many people are always looking for the next big thing. Investors want to make money and developers want to work on the most advance and growing technology. There has been very little investment into new bitcoin specific companies over the past 2 years. The only new bitcoin company I know of that has received significant investment in the past two years is Blockstream. There has been a very large amount of investment into blockchain companies in general though. The money is there, it’s just not going into bitcoin. Ethereum has now reached close to 1/3 of bitcoin’s market cap and there is no sign that it is going to let up any time soon. The ethereum community is a breath of fresh air compared to the current bitcoin community and it feels very nostalgic there. It feels very much like the bitcoin community did 3-4 years ago. They have showed that they are not afraid of using hard forks to upgrade the protocol. They have a leader who is intelligent, pragmatic and good at communicating and IMO who is likely to get the network through the early volatile years. The community showed that they value pragmatism and reality over ideology when they stopped a theft of a large percentage of the currency supply and did so without having any adverse affects on anyone other than the thief. They also achieved this while under attack from bitcoin. They have been working with major organisations and companies to promote and forward the use of the network and they listen to the users of the network to find out what problems they have and which features they want, and then work towards satisfying the needs of their users. The developers of the network have known large holdings of the currency, which means conflicts of interest are less likely to arise and protocol development can directly correlate increased returns for the developer’s investment.
There are a number of possibilities, but I believe all end with very similar outcomes.
Scenario 1 - BU/EC gains 75% of the network hash rate
If BU gains 75% of the network hash rate, a hard fork will become likely (although not certain). Core and their supporters will start to try and burn down the network. All communication channels will overflow with FUD (some real, some fake). Core supporters with large bitcoin holdings will start dumping them on the market in ways that will cause the most damage to price. Core will start recommending at the very minimum a difficulty readjustment and quite likely also a POW change. Price will fall extremely far as speculators adjust their risk exposure and wait out the storm, traders will short the market to make as much money as possible during the fall, and core supporters try to get the BTC price to go as low as possible on the BU/EC side of the fork and BU/EC supporters try to get the price to BCC price to go as low as possible. Whatever the price is before the fork is certain, I think it is likely to reach 50% of that between the time a fork becomes certain and when the fork actually happens. After the fork happens the price could go down to literally any level. While this is happening, the Ethereum market cap is going to overtake bitcoin even if the Ethereum price does not increase (which it will). Bitcoin will not survive this. The moment Ethereum overtakes bitcoin as the biggest cryptocurrency, everyone will find out. It will be posted in articles in every technology news website on the internet. Once the casual bitcoin holders/users find out (hint most do not even pay attention to what is going on in bitcoin) they will quickly panic and either sell to fiat, or sell into Ethereum to speculate. Mining will almost instantly become unprofitable at that point. Monumentally unprofitable in fact. The payout of 12.5 per block will not even slightly cover the cost of electricity and because miners have no direct control over the price of bitcoin they will be absolutely powerless to do anything other than mine at a loss for a very long period of time. If bitcoin price drops to $100, which IMO is very conservative, then it is likely that 90% of the miners will have to turn their hardware off. This means that the difficulty adjustment periods will increase by a factor of 10 to 20 weeks. These miners that are left will need to mine at a huge loss for up to 20 weeks, or hope that somehow the price recovers. I don’t think even the biggest miners could survive that. Further difficulty reset hard forks will be proposed and it will be chaos. While all of this is happening, Ethereum is likely to be running fine and price will likely be rising significantly as money from bitcoin pours into it.
Scenario 2 - BU/EC never gains 75% of the network hash rate
In this scenario there will be absolutely stalemate. Core will not be able to implement Segwit and therefore will not be able to change bitcoin into a settlement network, but also the transaction throughput will not be increased through larger blocks. The debate will have become so vitriolic that no further progress can be made within bitcoin. Bitcoin simply will not scale on OR off-chain. In this scenario the end is not so violent like in scenario 1 but then end result is the same. Ethereum (and other cryptocurrencies in general) will continue to gain market share throughout the year as Bitcoin remains stuck in stalemate. The bitcoin price continues decreasing and the Ethereum price keeps on increasing until Ethereum overtakes bitcoin. Once the flip happens, it will accelerate significantly as people realise what is happening. The end result is the same as the later part of scenario 1.
Scenario 3 - BU/EC lose most/all of the network hash rate
In this scenario Core manages to get Segwit accepted by the network. Most people in btc simply leave bitcoin for good. Fees will remain high and transaction throughput low. Core will not increase the block size limit until after LN has been proven to work and users have been forced/coerced into using it. LN is not anywhere near ready for production and it is likely to take at least 2 more years until it is released and working and another year or two until it is fully implemented into wallets, and then another year until businesses are able to understand and use it in their backend. I.e. in an ideal world where everything works as intended in this theoretical system it will take 4-5 years until bitcoin has similar properties to what it had 2 years ago. This obviously ignores the fact that there has been no analysis on whether this would even work on an economic level, let alone a technological level. As transaction fees rise users and business will be pushed into using other cryptocurrencies and fiat and at some point bitcoin’s network effect will be overcome by Ethereum’s. This scenario is essentially the same as scenario 3, but there maybe some initial price pump when Segwit activates and people enjoy and end to the debate. This will likely be short lived though.
What is most likely to happen (IMO)
If BU/EC is to continue to gain further market share of the hash rate and reach the 75% requirement that many parties have suggested. It is likely to take at least a couple more months of deliberations. For this to happen, a number of large pools will need to switch over. Bitfury has stated that they will not support BU and are mining Segwit and have even started mining UASF blocks. HaoBTC is still sticking to the HK agreement (which literally no one else is) and will not be running anything other than Core. This means it is really down to F2Pool and some of the smaller Pools. F2Pool has stated that it will stop signalling for classic and there is no indication that it will start signalling for anything other than Core (not segwit), and has stated that he thinks BU is dead. This suggests that the most likely scenario is scenario 2. BU/EC will not activate, but nor will Segwit. There are some things that may or may not happen in this scenario. For example it seems that Core are willing to do a UASF to push Segwit through under the pretence that any of the miners that are not mining Segwit are illegitimate as they are against the “consensus”. This will force the miners into making some kind of decision either way. Many are likely to side with Core but I think a significant portion will side with BU initially. A number of different things could happen in this scenario depending on the ratio of hash power on each side of the split. If the split is mostly equal, I expect that two coins will survive for some amount of time. What happens with bitcoin from that point I have no idea. If BU/EC gains the most hash power then the debate will rage on as the BU/EC will refuse to attack the minority chain out of moral reasons. What happens with bitcoin from that point I have no idea. If Core gains the majority share then the BU minority chain will be attacked by some of the majority miners. Core and their supporters do not have any moral objections against this kind of attack. The minority BU miners will then switch back to Core and it will likely play out like in scenario 3.
So this is BU’s fault for forcing a hard fork?
No, this is Core’s fault by making a hard fork dangerous by telling everyone a hard fork is dangerous for the past two years and blocking every conceivable compromise. They have petrified the bitcoin community and convinced them that any kind of hard fork for any reason that does not come from them is dangerous. They have done this to hold onto the power they should not even have in the first place. They have become the self appointed kings of bitcoin. They have achieved this by threatening to burn down the network instead of making a compromise, and by attacking anyone who threatens to take this power away from them. Unfortunately, when Gavin stepped down, he handed to keys to the bitcoin house to the wolves and once they are inside, it seems it is not possible to get them out again. The only way to make them totally irrelevant is to exit and let them be kings of nothing.
Why did you even become a mod in the first place?
I have known bitcoin was on a negative trajectory for quite some time but I felt that one last push to save it was worth my effort. I wanted to help btc be the best bitcoin subreddit to overcome some of the damage that bitcoin has done to the community. IMO btcis the best bitcoin subreddit, but it is far from perfect. I feel very strongly that the moderation of btc is a microcosm of the situation in the bitcoin community in general. I feel there is far too much weight put on idealogical decision making rather pragmatism and realism. The moderation policies of btc are ‘hands-off’ to a point I think is actually detrimental to the sub and to bitcoin. The issue is that, trolls overwhelm the sub and cause constant controversy. They act like a fire under the community and purposely rile everyone up. There is a reason for this. bitcoin was controlled mostly through censorship. Censorship alone was enough to create an echo chamber. They do not have control of the btc moderation team (well actually they managed to get two mods on here who have since left/been removed) so they must turn it into an echo-chamber by other means. They have achieved this by making sure every single post has comments from trolls that try to rile up the community. This makes the btc community have more tunnel vision as they/we try to insulate ourselves from the trolls. The problem is that it means that the community becomes highly idealogical and focused on only one goal. IMO it is a failure of this sub to not remove comments from trolls. This is pretty much a standard policy across the whole of reddit and the only reasons for not employing it are idealogical. Removing trolling is not the same as banning specific ideas or topics being genuinely discussed. Not doing so just makes btc a frustrating place to try and discuss things. It also means that any actual discussions outside the block size debate get very little traction as everyone gets dragged into the angry posts. I should be clear though, the other mods of this sub are great and absolutely want what is best for bitcoin.
Isn’t this all just FUD
I am not writing this to sway anyone. This is what I genuinely think will happen, but of course I could be wrong about every single prediction. It saddens me enormously to write this. The current trajectory for Bitcoin is down and the the trajectory for Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies is up. There will likely be people who say “but Ethereum doesn’t have any uses cases”, my argument to that is; what use-cases does bitcoin have right now that could not immediately be adopted by Ethereum today? There will also be people who say “but if bitcoin dies then all other cryptocurrencies will die with it, because how could anyone trust their money if it might just disappear”? My argument to that is; all cryptocurrencies are still in their infancy, even bitcoin. The writing has been on the wall for Bitcoin for quite some time. I do think there will likely be one ‘great’ cryptocurrency, but until that cryptocurrency is adopted by the masses, that title is still available. If the title of ‘biggest cryptocurrency’ can be taken then it was likely never meant to have it very long anyway. If/When a cryptocurrency manages to achieve mass adoption then it will have hundreds of millions of people, companies, organisations and even countries defending it. At that point the entire system will be working towards it’s success. At that point, the current moral ambivalence towards attacking a minority chain will be seen as ridiculous. After mass adoption of a cryptocurrency (for example Ethereum) has occurred, grandma’s will be writing to their local MP in support of the cyberwar against the Ethereum competitor ‘Othereum’. That is decentralisation. Huge numbers of diverse entities working to defend it. This will never happen on a network as limited as bitcoin’s is. In fact bitcoin is actively losing allies.
I’m out. Ethereum is likely to take over this year as bitcoin becomes myspace. This may happen very rapidly. I hope I am wrong.
I hold both Bitcoin and Ethereum. I have held a number of different cryptocurrencies over the years, but my holdings were almost always 90-100% bitcoin until recently.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
Resolving the Bitcoin block size debate. Use the markets, Luke. ... Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore. Become a member. Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. The Bitcoin block size debate (and the greater debate over scalability) will have implications for how governance works in Bitcoin over the long term. ... Trending Topics Markets He stewarded the project until 2014 when he stepped back to focus on the longer term vision for Bitcoin. Discussion and debate of the block size would linger as background noise until Gavin posted ... The Bitcoin Block Size Debate. So now we know that Bitcoin cash is actually a hard fork of Bitcoin, but why was it created? To answer this question, we need to pause for a second and go back a few years to discuss one of the most controversial topics of Bitcoin’s code – the block size and scalability issue. This will make bitcoin more valuable. The block size debate is just one issue today. We should be more concerned with choosing the right team with the right leader (or decision making framework) than any particular block size solution. The right team will have many decisions like this to make over the years.
Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin's recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin's ... a wild suggestion to reduce block sizes, mt gox news, and more! Sign up with coinbase. buy or sell 100 dollars in crypto currency and get 10 dollars of bitcoin for free with this link to coinbase. Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should ... Topics covered: * Bitcoin block size debate * Real life game theory experiment * The different interests: users, businesses, miners, core devs * Bitcoin fees are high * Yours had to switch to ... A talk on the Bitcoin block size debate and a discussion of arguments for both larger and smaller block sizes give by Leonhard Weese on 18 November, 2015 at Tuspark's Causeway Bay location in Hong ...