Shout out to James Hilliard for BIP91 and all the Core ...

[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:
  1. Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
  2. Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
  3. Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
  4. Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
  5. BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
  6. Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
  7. Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
  8. BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
  9. 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.

Various Announcements:

Electrum 1 - Electrum 2 - Trezor - Ledger - Coinbase - Breadwallet - Bitfinex - Airbitz - Blockchain.info - Exodus - Jaxx - Kraken - Bittrex - Greyscale - Yobit - Bitcoin Core - Bitstamp - [Mycelium]() - [GreenAddress]() - BitcoinTalk - (Reply in comments to add other services)

/Bitcoin wishes Bcash a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!

submitted by BashCo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

New BIP for the implementation of the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement (ie. New York/Silbert) includes BIP148 UASF (August 1st SegWit activation) and a 2mB hard-fork locking in 6 months thereafter

See Calvin Rechner's BIP: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal.
Signalling is via the string "COOP."
Here is some of the BIP in question:

Abstract

This document describes a virtuous combination of James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2], Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3], Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal, Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5], and hard fork safety mechanisms from Johnson Lau’s “Spoonnet”[6][7] into a single omnibus proposal and patchset.
...

Specification

Proposal Signaling
The string “COOP” is included anywhere in the txn-input (scriptSig) of the coinbase-txn to signal compatibility and support.
Soft Fork
Fast-activation (segsignal): deployed by a "version bits" with an 80% activation threshold BIP9 with the name "segsignal" and using bit 4... [with a] start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in.[2]
Flag-day activation (BIP148): While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected... This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) if the existing segwit deployment is not locked-in or activated before epoch time 1501545600. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in. While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.[3]
Hard Fork
The hard fork deployment is scheduled to occur 6 months after SegWit activates:
(HardForkHeight = SEGWIT_ACTIVE_BLOCK_HEIGHT + 26280)
For blocks equal to or higher than HardForkHeight, Luke-Jr’s legacy witness discount and 2MB limit are enacted, along with the following Spoonnet-based improvements[6][7]:

Deployment

Deployment of the “fast-activation” soft fork is exactly identical to Hilliard’s segsignal proposal[2]. Deployment of the “flag-day” soft fork is exactly identical to Fry’s BIP148 proposal[3]. HardForkHeight is defined as 26280 blocks after SegWit is set to ACTIVE. All blocks with height greater than or equal to this value must adhere to the consensus rules of the 2MB hard fork.

Backwards compatibility

This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight November 15th, 2017.
To prevent the risk of building on top of invalid blocks, miners should upgrade their nodes to support segsignal as well as BIP148.
The intent of this proposal is to maintain full legacy consensus compatibility for users up until the HardForkHeight block height, after which backwards compatibility is waived as enforcement of the hard fork consensus ruleset begins.
I will expound upon this later, but I support this proposal. Primarily because it includes BIP148 UASF, secondarily because it includes a 2mB blocksize increase, which I support in principle (I am a big blocker but opposed to divergent consensus.)
submitted by AltF to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Megathread] On August 21, 2017, a new altcoin called SegCoin (BSG) will be created using Bitcoin's transaction history. Bitcoin itself continues to function normally, as Bitcoin cash (BCH)

What is happening?
In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 21, 2017 a new altcoin will be activated from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Segcoin" (BSG) or "Bitseg" 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 "Segcoin" (BSG)
As with all altcoins, Segcoin is technically off-topic for the /btc subreddit. However, segcoin will be created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of segcoin 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 segcoin. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your segcoin, 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, /btc has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Segcoin. 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 /Segcoin subreddit if you so choose.
If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Segwit coin:” An Interview with Segwit lead developer Peiter Wuille
A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Segcoin” (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
*Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
*Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
*BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Segcoin 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 Segcoin 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 natural block size growth from their forked client, as well as increasing the risk of mining cartels, development centralisation and high fee transactions
/btc wishes Segcoin a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!
submitted by ConalR to btc [link] [comments]

"Capacity Increase" signatories list

Out of curiosity, I wanted to know who the list of signatures were other than just names on a list. I went through each profile and did my best to align them to their known public company. If it's unknown or independent, I listed them as unknown.
Notes:
source: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
submitted by Gobitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal | CalvinRechner | May 29 2017

CalvinRechner on May 29 2017:
This proposal is written under the assumption that the signatories to the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement[1] are genuinely committed to the terms of the agreement, and intend to enact the updates described therein. As such, criticisms pertaining to the chosen deployment timeline or hard fork upgrade path should be treated as out-of-scope during the initial discussion of this proposal.
Because it includes the activation of a hard fork for which community consensus does not yet exist, this proposal is not likely to be merged into Bitcoin Core in the immediate future, and must instead be maintained and reviewed in a separate downstream repository. However, it is written with the intent to remain cleanly compatible with future network updates and changes, to allow for the option of a straightforward upstream merge if community consensus for the proposal is successfully achieved in the following months.
BIP: ?
Layer: Consensus
Title: Compatibility-oriented omnibus proposal
Author: Calvin Rechner
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI: ?
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-05-28
License: PD
===Abstract===
This document describes a virtuous combination of James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2], Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3], Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal, Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5], and hard fork safety mechanisms from Johnson Lau’s “Spoonnet”[6][7] into a single omnibus proposal and patchset.
===Motivation===
The Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement[1] stipulated the following commitments:
• Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
• Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months
This proposal seeks to fulfill these criteria while retaining maximum compatibility with existing deployment approaches, thereby minimizing the risks of a destructive chain split. Additionally, subsequent indications of implied criteria and expectations of the Agreement[8][9] are satisfied.
The proposed hard fork incorporates a legacy witness discount and 2MB blocksize limit along with the enactment of Spoonnet-derived protectionary measures, to ensure the safest possible fork activation within the constraints of the requirements outlined in the Scaling Agreement.
===Rationale===
To the extent possible, this represents an effort at a best-of-all-worlds proposal, intended to provide a common foundation from which all mutually-inclusive goals can be achieved while risks are minimized.
The individual constituent proposals include the following respective rationales:
James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2] explains:
The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3] is included to:
cause the existing "segwit" deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment.
Both of the aforementioned activation options (“fast-activation” and “flag-day activation”) serve to prevent unnecessary delays in the network upgrade process, addressing a common criticism of the Scaling Agreement and providing an opportunity for cooperation and unity instead.
Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal explains the reasoning behind linking SegWit’s activation with that of a later hard fork block size increase:
Segwit2Mb combines segwit as it is today in Bitcoin 0.14+ with a 2MB block size hard-fork activated ONLY if segwit activates (95% of miners signaling ... to re-unite the Bitcoin community and avoid a cryptocurrency split.
Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5] suggestions are included to reduce the marginal risks that such an increase in the block size might introduce:
if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit of 2 MB is imposed.
Johnson Lau’s anti-replay and network version updates[6][7] are included as general hard fork safety measures:
In a blockchain split, however, since both forks share the same historical ledger, replay attack would be possible, unless some precautions are taken.
===Copyright===
This document is placed in the public domain.
===Specification===

Proposal Signaling

The string “COOP” is included anywhere in the txn-input (scriptSig) of the coinbase-txn to signal compatibility and support.

Soft Fork

Fast-activation (segsignal): deployed by a "version bits" with an 80% activation threshold BIP9 with the name "segsignal" and using bit 4... [with a] start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in.[2]
Flag-day activation (BIP148): While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected... This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) if the existing segwit deployment is not locked-in or activated before epoch time 1501545600. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in. While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.[3]

Hard Fork

The hard fork deployment is scheduled to occur 6 months after SegWit activates:
(HardForkHeight = SEGWIT_ACTIVE_BLOCK_HEIGHT + 26280)
For blocks equal to or higher than HardForkHeight, Luke-Jr’s legacy witness discount and 2MB limit are enacted, along with the following Spoonnet-based improvements[6][7]:
===Deployment===
Deployment of the “fast-activation” soft fork is exactly identical to Hilliard’s segsignal proposal[2]. Deployment of the “flag-day” soft fork is exactly identical to Fry’s BIP148 proposal[3]. HardForkHeight is defined as 26280 blocks after SegWit is set to ACTIVE. All blocks with height greater than or equal to this value must adhere to the consensus rules of the 2MB hard fork.
===Backwards compatibility===
This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight November 15th, 2017.
To prevent the risk of building on top of invalid blocks, miners should upgrade their nodes to support segsignal as well as BIP148.
The intent of this proposal is to maintain full legacy consensus compatibility for users up until the HardForkHeight block height, after which backwards compatibility is waived as enforcement of the hard fork consensus ruleset begins.
===References===
[1] https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0148.mediawiki
[4] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013921.html
[5] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html
[7] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013473.html
[8] https://twitter.com/sysmannet/status/867124645279006720
[9] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/867139046786465792
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170528/7696e13f/attachment-0001.html
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014445.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Arsonist James Hilliard u/lightsword (at BitClub) does his malleability attack, and firefighter Greg Maxwell u/nullc (Blockstream CTO) begs people on r\bitcoin to adopt SegWit. SegWit only SEMI-fixes malleability - but its "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) would PERMANENTLY solidify Blockstream's power

Note: Yesterday a post of mine was censored on btc. And now today another post of mine was censored on btc, with the public modlog saying "keyword spam". Below is a copy of my post from today which was censored on btc.
Maybe btc is trying to tell me I should stop spending so much time posting, and I should relax and start enjoying my life spending some of my coins on hookers and blow? LOL!
The only miners supporting the unpopular SegWit are associated with Blockstream and/or corrupt.
A pattern is starting to emerge among the players supporting SegWit:
James Hilliard's "malleability attack" and Greg Maxwell's "solution" are a nice example of "collaboration" - between an arsonist and a firefighter
In the recent "malleability attack" on Bitcoin, perpetrator James Hilliard u/lightsword (at BitClub) can be viewed as playing the role of the vandal or "arsonist".
Now, right on schedule, along comes Greg Maxwell u/nullc (Blockstream CTO) offering to play the role of the "firefighter".
Greg's recent post on the censored, low-information subreddit r\bitcoin, begging people to support SegWit because of BitClub's "malleability attack", is merely his latest, desperate - and most cynical - attempt to get people to accept the unpopular SegWit, with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
We should not fall for this pathetic attempt use a "malleability attack" to panic people into adopting the flawed SegWit.
SegWit is not the helpful "solution" that Greg claims it is.
The real goal of SegWit-as-a-soft-fork with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) is actually to let Blockstram hijack Bitcoin development forever - due to precisely the irreversible nature of SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
And since u/null is of course terrified of discussing the technical aspects of SegWit with intelligent users and coders, where did he post his latest pathetic desperate propaganda and lies begging people to adopt the SegWit poison-pill trojan-horse?
Where else: On his sad little echo-chamber of yes-men and low-information losers: the censored non-forum r\bitcoin, where nearly everyone who's actually knowledgeable about Bitcoin's technology, economics and politics have long since been silenced and banned - including banning posts quoting Satoshi.
As usual, Greg is spreading FUD and lies on a censored forum in his ongoing, failing attempts to help Blockstream hijack Bitcoin.
He should be ashamed of himself for this latest attempt on his part to hijack Bitcoin for his desperate and failing shitty startup Blockstream.
His proposed "solution" to the problem - the poorly coded SegWit - would actually be a poison-pill trojan-horse for Bitcoin.
SegWit is the worst approach possible to fixing malleability and quadratic hashing - because the incompetent/corrupt Blockstream devs insisted on doing it as an unnecessary and dangerous soft fork - because they're afraid of the "full-node referendum" of a hard fork - because they know that with a hard fork, we'd vote their asses out.
SegWit would needlessly make all transactions "anyone-can-spend" - which means that if Bitcoin were to adopt SegWit, SegWit could never be un-adopted. SegWit would cement Blockstream's control of Bitcoin - permanently.
As this lengthy technical article has already explained in detail, SegWit as a soft fork is the most radical and irresponsible proposed change to Bitcoin in its 8 years of history.
And we already have a much better solution than SegWit: FlexTrans.
SegWit bundles together three not-very-helpful "fixes" into a dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH):
SegWit offers:
The problem with SegWit is that it would deploy these three low-priority "fixes" via a "soft fork" which would make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
Why is Blockstream pushing SegWit with its dangerous, irreversible dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH)?
As has been discussed many, many times before (on uncensored less-censored forums like btc), SegWit is incredibly dangerous for Bitcoin - but wonderful for Blockstream, because:
This is why Blockstream wants SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - because:
SegWit would give Blockstream permanent control over the Bitcoin protocol.
This is the real goal of SegWit: permanently cementing Blockstream's power.
SegWit isn't about blocksize (as if SegWit's centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize were any better than Core's existing centrally-planned 1MB blocksize anyways - puh-leeze!! BU is the real, long-term blocksize solution, because BU gives us market-based blocksizes, now and in the future!).
SegWit isn't even really about malleability and quadratic hashing.
SegWit is about power. Giving permanent power over Bitcoin to Blockstream.
Oscar Wilde once said:
"Everything in the world is about sex - except sex. Sex is about power."
Along the same lines, the blocksize debate is not about the blocksize. Everything that Blockstream does is actually about power and control.
Don't look at their words.
Look at their code.
The dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) is what makes SegWit so dangerous.
If we were to actually implement SegWit with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH), it would set a precedent that can't be rolled back or phased out.
Those "anyone-can-spend" SegWit transactions would be in the blockchain from then on, and any attempt to roll back SegWit would leave those transactions vulnerable - literally spendable by anyone.
So don't fall for soothing language like "soft fork" and "opt in". Call SegWit what it really is: a dangerous, irreversible, poison-pill, trojan-horse
Blockstream AXA-funded propagandists like CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and their Minister of Propaganda Alex Berg u/brg444 and their low-information supporters love to use soothing words like "soft fork" and "opt-in" and "fully tested" when talking about SegWit.
But soothing words like "soft fork" and "opt-in" are just more of the usual propaganda and lies from Greg and Blockstream and the central bankers behind them who are trying to hijack Bitcoin, because SegWit would have the following disastrous consequences:
SegWit is about power. Permanent power for Blockstream.
This is Blockstream's real goal with SegWit. It's not about "offering" a pitiful, inadequate centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize - as if we were even interested in a dev team offering us a blocksize increase when we can control the blocksize ourselves with BU anyways.
SegWit isn't even about fixing malleability or quadratic hashing time.
Behind all the hand waving and "arson" by James Hilliard u/lightsword (at Bitclub) and "firefighting" by Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/null - behind Blockstream's offers to "help" us solve problems which they themselves have caused - more and more people are discovering what Blockstream is really up to with SegWit.
SegWit is a poison pill, it's a trojan horse, it's a coup by Blockstream attempting to hijack Bitcoin development forever.
Unsurprisingly, over half of the hashpower supporting SegWit turns out to actually be coming from two miners associated with Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC.
The Bitcoin community knows that SegWit is dangerous, being pushed on us by the central bankers behind Blockstream, in order to hijack Bitcoin.
But fortunately, we don't need SegWit. We can better solutions: Bitcoin Unlimited and FlexTrans.
BU and FlexTrans are safe and simple upgrades - without SegWit's dangerous, irreversible dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
Bitcoin Unlimited offers market-based blocksizes.
And Bitcoin Unlimited already works.
In fact, Bitcoin Unlimited is already mining over 30% of the blocks on the network - versus only 25% being mined by SegWit, which is being rejected by miners.
Core/Blockstream's centralized, fiat-funded "roadmap" is a dead-end. BU and FlexTrans are the future.
Core/Blockstream's centralized, fiat-funded "roadmap" would lead to delays, congestion, high fees, low adoption, and less money for users and miners - and (they hope) big profits and centralized control for the central bankers behind Blockstream.
Meanwhile, BU and FlexTrans are the real, decentralized, permissionless on-chain scaling solutions offering a bright future for Bitcoin - helping real users with real use cases in the real marketplace - based on simple, safe, future-proof code - without the poison-pill, trojan-horse of Blockstream's dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
Now the Bitcoin community no longer has to be forced into accepting Core's too-little, too-late scaling stalling roadmap and their shitty soft-fork SegWit - which is designed to hurt Bitcoin and help Blockstream.
The Bitcoin community now has a clear and superior roadmap to fix the real urgent problems in Bitcoin, in order of actual priority decided by us, not decided by the bankers behind Blockstream.
The Bitcoin community's market-based (not Blockstream-based) roadmap will lead to better code, lower fees, higher price, more adoption, and more profits for miners (based on higher price and more transactions per block), because:
Below are the specific next steps our the roadmap - which the community has been developing in a decentralized and permissionless way, to support safe and simple on-chain scaling and improvements for Bitcoin - now and in the future:
(1) Deploy a simple protocol upgrade supporting market-based blocksizes: Bitcoin Unlimited. The network of miners is well on the way to making this happen - with 30% of blocks now being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited much to the chagrin of Greg and his low-information, brainwashed supporters panicking on the censored cesspool of r\bitcoin.
(2) Deploy a simple protocol upgrade with a simple and safe fix for malleability and quadratic hashing, while also supporting a future-proof tag-based format (similar to JSON and HTML) for possible future needed changes: FlexTrans - supporting future upgrades without the need for forking.
Greg is afraid to talk to the real Bitcoin community - so he only talks now in the echo-chamber of r\bitcoin.
He knows that the real Bitcoin community is rejecting his centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize and his poison-pill trojan-horse SegWit.
Greg can whine and moan and spew his usual lies and propaganda all he wants on the censored cesspool of r\bitcoin - and his low-information losers can chime in to soothe his sadness and bask in their illusion of "consensus", where there is actually none - because the real community and network and market have already started routing around Blockstream's fiat-funded censorship and lies.
They are a dwindling minority who are totally out of touch with the way Bitcoin actually works and totally out of touch with that the Bitcoin community actually wants.
The latest example of their consfusion is Core devTM Blue Matt Corrallo's idiotic tweet today - where he shows his total ignorance of how Nakamoto Consensus works - thinking that the 21 million coin cap is preserved by a centralized dev team locking down the code - and not through the economic wisdom of the market players a whole, based on the economic incentives of Nakamoto Consensus.
Consensus has been forming this whole time - behind their backs, as they continue to stick their heads in the ground.
Consensus has been forming this whole time using the mechanisms developed by Satoshi, while Greg and his low-information loser supporters continue to sink into denial and desperation, with their back-room deals and broken promises and their transparent lies and their centrally planned blocksizes which have crippled the network.
They can enjoy their centralized shit-coin SegWit and continue to commiserate on their censored shit-forum r\bitcoin - while they stand by watching helplessly as our smaller but superior dev teams continue to communicate on more-open forums, providing real solutions for real users needing real scaling and real decentralization in the real marketplace - as we continue to realize Satoshi's design for "p2p eletronic cash".
They made their bed, now let them lie in it. They're too afraid to even talk about their plans on more-open forums now - because they can't face the truth, and they know they would be destroyed by community they have repeatedly lied to and betrayed.
Even with all their fiat and the power of incumbency, they're losing because of their lies and their crappy code.
The Bitcoin community is seeing through their lies, and rejecting their centralized control and propaganda, and we're coalescing and forming consensus around a simpler, safer and more future-proof roadmap: starting with Bitcoin Unlimited.
So:
Bitcoin Unlimited will succeed and SegWit will fail - because nobody wants the crappy code that Greg and Blockstream are trying to force on us: SegWit's totally inadequate 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize, and SegWit's dangerous and irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
Real users want to control our own blocksize.
And real coders know that we don't need make our coins "anyone-can-spend" simply to fix a trivial non-problem like malleability and a minor problem like quadratic hashing time.
So let Greg and Blockstream continue to cripple their code and get cheered on by their sad little echo-chamber of low-information supporters - aided and abetted by their collaborators at BitFury and BTCC and by the arsonist buddy at BitClub - while they continue to destroy their coin and their community - with their central planning and censorship and lies and their crippled crappy code.
Meanwhile:
And we will continue to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited - providing on-scaling for Bitcoin - using market-based blocksizes.
submitted by ydtm to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] [Megathread] On August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559), a new altcoin called Bcash (BCH) has...

The following post by BashCo is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/6r05nm
The original post's content was as follows:

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:
  1. Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
  2. Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
  3. Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
  4. Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
  5. BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
  6. Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
  7. Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
  8. BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
  9. 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.

Various Announcements:

Electrum 1 - Electrum 2 - Trezor - Ledger - Coinbase - Breadwallet - Bitfinex - Airbitz - Blockchain.info - Exodus - Jaxx - Kraken - Bittrex - Greyscale - Yobit - Bitcoin Core - Bitstamp - [Mycelium]() - [GreenAddress]() - BitcoinTalk - (Reply in comments to add other services)

/Bitcoin wishes Bcash a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!

submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

How to create a Bitcoin wallet on Blockchain BULLISH: Samsung Galaxy S10 integrated Bitcoin Wallet ... Bitcoin Wallet.dat with 3876.79748480 BTC Balance crypto wallet security nobody talks about... Bitcoin Edge - YouTube

Active Core developer James Hilliard said the deprecation warning should also tell merchants that “it’s recommended that users contact/inform the merchant that they are using a deprecated and insecure protocol.” However, most BTC developers simply responded with an “Ack” (accepted the change) and Core lead maintainer Wladimir J. van der Laan said, “I would really like to merge this ... #16863 Add a missing closing parenthesis in the bitcoin-wallet’s help (darosior) #16757 CChainState return values (MarcoFalke) #16847 add comments clarifying how local services are advertised (jamesob) #16812 Fix whitespace errs in .md files, bitcoin.conf, and Info.plist.in (ch4ot1c) #16885 Update tx-size-small comment with relevant CVE disclosure (instagibbs) #16900 Fix doxygen comment for ... Bitcoin contributor James Hilliard, well-known for helping to prevent a bitcoin split earlier this year, suggested a change to the Segwit2x codebase that he argues would give mobile wallets more ... Bitcoin.org website. Contribute to jameshilliard/bitcoin.org development by creating an account on GitHub. r/btc: /r/btc was created to foster and support free and open Bitcoin discussion, Bitcoin news, and exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from … Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. r/btc. log in sign up. User account menu. 12 'Unrealistic': BIP 91 Creator James Hilliard Has Choice Words for Segwit2x - Coindesk. Close. 12. Posted ...

[index] [16411] [32452] [30138] [47257] [31706] [6216] [22628] [14584] [22854] [38769]

How to create a Bitcoin wallet on Blockchain

Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume... 👇🏻Support the channel by using my affiliate links below👇🏻 Exchanges I'm using: Coinbase FIAT https://www.coinbase.com/join/59398125002bcc03276297d6 Bin... How to Set Up the BlueWallet iOS Based Bitcoin Wallet with Lightning Network Support - Duration: 18:05. ... James Veitch - Duration: 9:49. TED Recommended for you. 9:49. Save Money Traveling With ... Your crypto wallet security depends completely on keeping your private key or seed phrase safe from loss, theft or destruction, and there are quite a few devices to help you do this. However, this ... Bitcoin Wallet.dat with 3876.79748480 BTC Balance. Last Receive : 2020-03-31 23:38 Last Send : 2019-09-05 07:49 Final Balance : 3876.79748480 BTC Wallet in B...

#