First Interview With Olivier Janssens After 'The Truth

The main reason(s) why the BU coalition is blocking segwit according to one of their main backer

Today, I was discussing BU with somebody who claims to be one of the main persons originally behind Bitcoin Unlimited and also claims to be part of a specific group of early adopters including Roger Ver and Olivier Janssens. This person is followed by all of them, including Jihan WU on twitter and is often participating in the "debate" so I'm inclined to believe him.
Although most of his first arguments are just different variants of critiques against Core, I tried to get the bottom of it and I'm pretty sure I found it.
After hours of discussion, his main argument was that was that we need to scale bitcoin to "billions". So when I pointed out that to do that we need both increase in blocksize + onchain optimization AND layer2 scaling via smartcontracts (Such as lightning and others), he finally conceded that their group is just paying lipservice to offchain but that they think that (without being able to explain why) smartcontracts were diminishing the value of Bitcoin as money. This seems to coincide well with the fact that Roger Ver describes fixing malleability as a "non-urgent" problem. They see both fixing malleability and the new weighting of transactions in segwit as enabling of smartcontracts vs the simple use of Bitcoin as "dumb digital money" that according to them would make it more valuable.
So there you have it: Bitcoin Unlimited exists to block segwit. So If you find yourself not wanting to choose "camps", don't expect any compromise such as BU+Segwit from Bitcoin Unlimited side. That's the only reason for Bitcoin Unlimited existence in the first place. And If you want to support Bitcoin Unlimited, remember that there will be no malleability fix, no enhanced smart contracts, no enhanced fungibility. That's the price to pay for the mining pools to support bigger blocks via BU.
It seems that these pools might be afraid of competition of layer 2 smartcontracts such as lightning AND they also fear segwit will enable privacy enhancements as explained by Huang shiliang on 8btc a few months ago. As you can see here:
Huang Shiliang is sponsored by an anonymous doner (I'd bet Jihan Wu) to write theses anti-segwit, anti-lightning, anti-privacy articles. As you can see here:
That's it!
submitted by Taidiji to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

$100,000 bounty winner announcement!

$100,000 bounty winner
Posted by Olivier Janssens. Twitter: @olivierjanss https://twitter.com/olivierjanss
Hi Everyone,
This thread is to announce the winner of the contest http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25sf4f/100000_bounty_for_software_platform_that_can/
First of all I want to thank everyone for their submissions, ideas and positive feedback. There were a lot of great candidates, and it was very difficult to make a choice. I am now confident though that I have selected the best possible winner. I have also selected a runner up because these guys deserve to get a prize for what they accomplished.
Before I go into the details of who won, I want you to know the rationale behind my choice. The initial question was: What is the best platform to replace the Bitcoin Foundation? To start off, we have to ask ourselves: why do we need a Bitcoin Foundation in the first place? In other words, which purpose does the Bitcoin Foundation serve? According to their website, it is ‘Keeping Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence’. I guess those 3 things somehow failed to apply to the Bitcoin Foundation itself, as they want to be the main representatives of Bitcoin, and as a result also on Bitcoin.
Further analysing the Foundation, the main thing they are doing right now is funding some of the core Bitcoin developers. And I might add, they are not doing a very good job at that. Since people expect the Bitcoin Foundation to take that role, there is no real initiative to fund the developers directly. As a result, the developers are underfunded, because the Bitcoin Foundation does not have that much money (it got lucky with the price of Bitcoin rising and it’s memberships fees being paid in Bitcoin since it’s inception). They have admitted this buffer won’t last and is going to be a serious issue in the future. We also don’t know how much they are paying the developers and how much money they have left, since their transparency is pretty much non-existent. The funding could stop at any time and endanger Bitcoin even more. There have been highly concerning reports about the core devs being chronically underfunded, and as a result, Bitcoin development is grinding to a halt. As such, and to guarantee the (political) independence of the developers, the community should start funding the developers directly, ASAP.
Next to that, the Bitcoin Foundation has been doing some lobbying with Washington. Again we are lacking serious transparency here. It would be much better if we as a community can select our lobbyists directly and actually know what they are doing. Good lobbyists can come forward with a proposal and set their goals. We can then decide directly to fund them or not. Which is pretty much what is happening all over the world without the Bitcoin Foundation. People are coming out of the trenches and have their own lobbyists involved with their local governments. The same thing applies to organising conferences. Do we really need a Bitcoin Foundation to organise the one big conference? No, as has been proven many times over . There are many big conferences that are a huge success, and none of them are organised by the Bitcoin Foundation. We can do this ourselves.
Now, the question remains, what is the best way to organise all of this? Do we need a platform that simulates the Bitcoin Foundation, but with a better voting mechanism? A sort of "direct democracy"? After careful consideration, the answer is no. Such a "direct democracy" will still have the overhead of politics, getting people elected, etc. Bitcoin is apolitical. I know it takes time to get out of this mindset, but Bitcoin truly liberates the world beyond politics. We should not attempt to recreate unnecessary overhead or middlemen. Let’s have Bitcoin set us free. And for this very reason I have selected Lighthouse from Mike Hearn as the winner.
Winner: Lighthouse (Mike Hearn)
The sky is really the limit. And it will not create any political overhead, we can select the projects we want to support directly.
Also, Mike Hearn wants to get developers directly funded through the platform. Having a core dev behind this platform is a big boon to getting this off the ground.
Mike has agreed to release the platform as open source before the end of August. He will be awarded $40,000 on completion. After the platform is live, I will put an additional $50,000 towards the first core dev crowdfunding project that gets made on it. This should help them become independent the moment it gets released, and hopefully will start streamlining Bitcoin core development again.
http://www.coindesk.com/new-decentralized-crowdfunding-platform-reshape-bitcoin-landscape/
Edit: More info and screenshots at Mike's blog http://blog.vinumeris.com/2014/07/02/vinumeris-and-olivier-janssens-team-up/
Runner up: Eris by Project Douglas (Casey Kuhlman, Dennis McKinnon and Preston Byrne)
These guys have done a tremendous job at creating a software platform which is extendable into many many things. It allows for the creating of a decentralised ‘anything’. The implications of this are tremendous, and as such I wanted to award them a part of the bounty also. They will get $10,000 for this amazing effort.
https://eris.projectdouglas.org/
submitted by anarchystar to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

Current state of affairs

IMPORTANTE NOTE: THIS THREAD IS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED, PLEASE FOLLOW THIS ONE INSTEAD: http://www.reddit.com/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/21hrv8/current_state_of_affairs/ I explain the reason for the change here. Thanks!

LAST UPDATE: March 27th 2014 09:47 GMT +1

NOTE: I'm trying my best but because of the sheer volume of tidbits popping up every day, this post might ocasionally miss some updates. Please feel free to point it out in the comments whenever you feel there is information missing in the post, thanks!
A note on recovering funds: We have no information on how to recover fiat/bitcoins/goxcoins yet and MtGox has only given very vague statements so far. It is speculated Mark Karpeles (CEO of MtGox) is currently figuring out what to do and not flying to the Bahamas with our money. It is advisable to have patience and wait for new developments on the subject for the time being.
March 26th, 2014
Match 25th, 2014
A new rumor has surfaced twitter, currently unsubstantiated, from @CanarslanEren who according to his previous tweets would have previously either guessed correctly or know in advance about the recovered 200K BTC (emphasis mine):
Within a few days(or hours) @MtGox will announce that "they found ~670.000 #bitcoin & may release some BTCs to the victims. @PatronaPartners
https://twitter.com/CanarslanEren/status/448418452701974528
The community consensus at the moment seems to be of skepticism, as it always goes with this kind of rumors. See also:
March 21th, 2014
  • There's a new update on mtgox.com confirming the previous story of having recovered 200K BTC that were thought lost. Key points:
    • On March 7, 2014, MtGox Co., Ltd. confirmed that an oldn format wallet which was used prior to June 2011 held a balance of approximately 200,000 BTC (199,999.99 BTC)
    • For security reasons, the 200,000 BTC which were at first on the 7th moved to online wallets were moved between the 14 th and the 15th to offline wallets.
    • The bitcoins held today by MtGox Co., Ltd. amount to a total of approximately 202,000 BTC, including the above 200,000 BTC and the approximately 2,000 BTC which existed prior to the application for commencement of a civil rehabilitation proceeding.
March 20th, 2014
  • Several users were reporting issues with the balance-checking tool online at mtgox.com, namely that bank transfers and transactions stuck in progress were not showing. This is now apparently fixed and balances seem to have been accordingly updated. Thread here.
  • In line with the blockchain movements we've seen for the past few weeks and the respective MtGox API activity, finally a japanese news article appeared where MtGox lawyers announce MtGox has found and owns 200K BTC, translation, courtesy of h1d:
    Bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox which collapsed in February announced on 20th that they have found they're still in possession of the 200,000 BTC out of the 850,000 BTC that was reported to be lost.
    According to the lawyer, they found them on the 7th of this month by searching through a storage on the internet called a "wallet" which was being used by MtGox up until June 2011.
    MtGox has reported that they have lost almost all of the 850,000 BTC owned while filing for bankruptcy protection on February 28th.
    /bitcoin thread here.
March 18th, 2014
  • A new update on mtgox.com is now online: account holders can now provide their login authentication data on the site to retrieve the last status of their wallets for convenience. It would appear that this update is legimitate, Redditcoin states:
    I just called the MtGox call centre in Japan - they confirmed that the login has been put there by "legal" and they have not been hacked. I called this number from the original banckrupty announcement (I called from Australia - we are only 2 hours ahead): +81 3-4588-3922. A nice man with an American accent said that the login has been put there by "legal" for users to check their balances and that the website has not been hacked.
    Redditcoin asked for transaction history data as well:
    I called the number again (about an hour later) - again, absolutely no waiting - I called again to ask about my transaction history. The same man answered, with the American accent (although sounded Japanese), who spoke impeccable English. He said that the transaction history is still unavailable because the courts still have to "polish" it (whatever that means). I said I needed it for taxation purposes. He replied by saying he will "check on this, and post an update on the website soon".
    As for the balance data that can now be retrieved on mtgox.com, the site notes (emphasis mine):
    This balance confirmation service is provided on this site only for the convenience of all users. Please be aware that confirming the balance on this site does not constitute a filing of rehabilitation claims under the civil rehabilitation procedure and note that the balance amounts shown on this site should also not be considered an acknowledgment by MtGox Co., Ltd. of the amount of any rehabilitation claims of users. Rehabilitation claims under a civil rehabilitation procedure become confirmed from a filing which is followed by an investigation procedure. The method for filing claims will be published on this site as soon as we will be in situation to announce it.
  • The MtGox API which used to list pending transactions has been removed today. In the past few weeks, this API had shown that the hundreds of thousands of BTC moving in the blockchain connected with MtGox wallets could still belong to Gox. Thread.
Match 17th, 2014
March 16, 2014
An new unconfirmed, unverified IRC quote appeared on /bitcoin:
we are working on resuming service, can't say how soon it'll be
While the authenticity is still in question, if true this would be in line with all the rumors and hints we've seen up until now.
March 15, 2014
  • The hundreds of thousands of coins moving in the blockchain that MtGox allegedly still own have been spotted doing something new: the outputs are now merging in new addresses of 2K BTC each. This was first spotted in this thread and later confirmed here. As usual, we have zero indications of what this means yet. -Mahn speculates:
    The only thing I can imagine myself is that whoever is doing the splitting decided 50 BTC was too little or would take too long and switched to bigger outputs per address.
  • New movement in the MtGox order book as reported by their still online API has been detected. Thread.
  • Further discussion on bitcointalk revealed that the alleged personal customer information for sale by the recent MtGox data leak hackers is most likely fake. See also this thread.
March 14th, 2014
There's a new update on mtgox.com concerning their Chapter 15 US filing. It contains no new information other than the confirmation of the news that appeared on March 11th.
March 12th, 2014
  • MtGox US subsidiary assets have been temporarily frozen by US Judge. Story here.
  • Mark Karpeles declaration to the US Bankruptcy Court has been published online:
    "On February 7, 2014, all bitcoin withdrawals were halted by MtGox due to the theft or disappearance of hundreds of thousands of bitcoins owned by MtGox customers as well as MtGox itself. The cause of the theft or disappearance is the subject of intensive investigation by me and others -- as of the present time I believe it was caused or related to a defect or "bug" in the bitcoin software algorithm, which was exploited by one or more persons who had "hacked" the bitcoin network. On February 24, 2014, MtGox suspended all trading after internal investigations discovered a loss of 744,408 bitcoins presumably from this method of theft. These events caused among others MtGox to become insolvent and to file the Japan Proceeding."
    Discussion thread.
March 1st-11th:
http://www.reddit.com/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/1yvvec/current_state_of_affairs/cg2di1f
February 2014:
http://www.reddit.com/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/1yvvec/current_state_of_affairs/cfywewf
submitted by -Mahn to mtgoxinsolvency [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-07 22:40 PDT

Period: 29.80 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 28052
Rate (per day) 33.52 904.13
Unique Redditors 409 2067
Combined Score 56126 117584

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3835 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" (529 points, 262 comments)
    2. Charlie Shrem: "Oh cmon. @gavinandresen is the reason we are all here today. Stop attacking people, ...." (256 points, 61 comments)
    3. The core developers don't care about you. Let's fire them by hard fork to Bitcoin unlimited! (231 points, 83 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Core Hashrate Below 80% (211 points, 27 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin is an P2P electronic cash system, not digital gold. If Bitcoin's usefulness as cash is undermined, its value will be undermined too." (198 points, 196 comments)
    6. I like these ads (194 points, 25 comments)
    7. "ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator already help more than 5K delayed transactions got confirmed." (142 points, 27 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Unlimited: Over 800 PH/s (128 points, 21 comments)
    9. ViaBTC produces ZERO empty block in the last month. Best in SPV base mining pool. (117 points, 2 comments)
    10. New ATL (All Time Low) For Bitcoin Core Blocks (114 points, 59 comments)
  2. 2876 points, 24 submissions: ydtm
    1. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
    2. BU-SW parity! 231 vs 231 of the last 1000 blocks! Consensus will always win over censorship! MARKET-BASED blocksize will always win over CENTRALLY-PLANNED blocksize! People want blocksize to be determined by the MARKET - not by Greg Maxwell & his 1.7MB anyone-can-spend SegWit-as-a-soft-fork blocks. (271 points, 66 comments)
    3. The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price! (185 points, 80 comments)
    4. "Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
    5. "Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander (175 points, 110 comments)
    6. "You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
    7. Blockstream/Core don't care about you. They're repeatedly crippling the network with their DEV-CONTROLLED blocksize. Congestion & delays are now ROUTINE & PREDICTABLE after increased difficulty / time between blocks. Only we can fix the network - using MARKET-CONTROLLED blocksize (Unlimited/Classic) (168 points, 60 comments)
    8. 3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
    9. This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price. (143 points, 97 comments)
    10. Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
  3. 2424 points, 31 submissions: realistbtc
    1. Remember this picture ? It was a very strong and cool message from around 2014 . Well, sadly it's not true anymore. But it was universally liked in the Bitcoin space , and probably brought here some of us . I remember even luke-jr reposting it somewhere (oh , the hypocrysis!! ). (249 points, 55 comments)
    2. Emin Gun Sirer on Twitter ' My take is the exact opposite: we are now finding out that Segwit isn't necessary and we can get the same benefits via simpler means. " (248 points, 46 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on Twitter : ' The purpose of a consensus system is to arrive at one outcome. Participating means accepting the result even if you initially disagree. ' (204 points, 56 comments)
    4. enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
    5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter - 'This can't be controversial... can it? - a definition of Bitcoin' (136 points, 38 comments)
    6. adam back on twitter "contentious forks are bad idea for confidence & concept of digital scarcity. wait for the ETFs. profit. mean time deploy segwit & lightning" - no! a corrupt company like blockstream with a washed out ex cypherpunk like adam are what's bad for Bitcoin . (122 points, 115 comments)
    7. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - if you stray from that , you don't get to keep calling it Bitcoin. call it blockstreamcoin, adamcoin, gregcoin, theymoscoin or whatever and go fork off yourself . (112 points, 19 comments)
    8. soon 21 will have to change the scale , because 180 satoshi/KB won't be enough anymore - madness - feel free to send your complaints to greg maxwell CTO of blockstream (112 points, 31 comments)
    9. PSA : if you use a ledger wallet , you risk paying an absurdly high free - see here : 10$ for a 225 bytes 150$ tx - but remember , it's all fine for your elitist and gregonomic friends at blockstream (109 points, 111 comments)
    10. Luke 'the liar' Dashjr : ' My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. ' -- yes , he wrote exactly that !! (96 points, 33 comments)
  4. 2129 points, 43 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. After failing to get 10K bitcoins for stolen NSA exploits, Shadow Brokers post farewell message, dump a cache of Windows hacking tools online (181 points, 23 comments)
    2. Coinbase and the IRS (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter - There is a leadership gap in bitcoin left by technical community members who didn't listen to miners, businesses or users. (117 points, 44 comments)
    4. Blockstream Core developer says you should "pay a $5 fee" to get your transaction to go through! (116 points, 32 comments)
    5. $2.50 transaction FEE paid on $37 transaction, still unconfirmed for 24 hours!! (109 points, 37 comments)
    6. Blockstream shareholder gives a little more insight into the company (107 points, 33 comments)
    7. Finished setting up my Unlimited full node. Took just over 24 hrs to sync with a 5 yr old laptop and standard U.S. connection + $50 1TB hard drive! (96 points, 46 comments)
    8. Matt Corallo/TheBlueMatt leaves Blockstream to go work for Chaincode Labs... is the Blockstream house of cards beginning to crumble? (86 points, 175 comments)
    9. 53,000 transactions in the backlog! (75 points, 79 comments)
    10. Doctor ₿ Goss on Twitter: Spending a year on #segwit instead of coordinating blocksize increase may not have been wise. Money that doesn't work is worthless (70 points, 11 comments)
  5. 1590 points, 9 submissions: parban333
    1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
    2. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. (400 points, 207 comments)
    3. Remember: while the blockstream trolls take Peter R out of context, Peter Todd really think Bitcoin should have a 1%/security tax via inflation. (146 points, 92 comments)
    4. So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
    5. SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
    6. Remember: the manipulative Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, want to fool every newcomer that doesn't know better into thinking that he practically invented Bitcoin. (91 points, 22 comments)
    7. Not only segwit support is laughable at the moment for something targeting 95% adoption, but it's actually diminishing. Wallet devs and people that spent resources implementing that ridiculous contraption must feel a bit silly at the moment.... (83 points, 143 comments)
    8. It's ironic that blockstream's concerns about hard forks security are what's actually caused concerns about hard forks security. (46 points, 5 comments)
    9. The Intercept - "Hidden loopholes allow FBI agents to infiltrate political and religious groups" - Just something to consider, right? (27 points, 2 comments)
  6. 1471 points, 10 submissions: sandakersmann
    1. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." (472 points, 254 comments)
    2. Olivier Janssens on Twitter: "Do you like Bitcoin? Then you like an unlimited block size. The limit was put in place as a temp fix and was never hit before last year." (252 points, 189 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: "Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin, enhancing decentralization" (213 points, 179 comments)
    4. Is Bitcoin Unlimited Headed for Activation? (149 points, 38 comments)
    5. Marius Kjærstad on Twitter: "High fees push real economy out of #Bitcoin and makes price driven by speculation. Result is a lower real economy floor to catch the knife." (132 points, 37 comments)
    6. No Primary Litecoin Pool Will Upgrade to Segwit, Says LTC1BTC's Founder (103 points, 60 comments)
    7. Charlie Shrem: "Bitcoin is been built to appreciate or die. That's how it is. It has to continue to grow. If it doesn't grow then it's just gonna go away." (76 points, 15 comments)
    8. G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (Episode 166) (36 points, 1 comment)
    9. Joseph VaughnPerling on Twitter: "#SegWit on $LTC's safe b/c low TX vol. AnyoneCanSpend TX UTXO unlikely to hit 51% attack cost. On $BTC it'd be insidiously fatal. @SegWit" (21 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Plummets After China Launches "Market Manipulation" Investigations Of Bitcoin Exchanges (17 points, 0 comments)
  7. 1408 points, 7 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. (307 points, 142 comments)
    2. Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
    3. Satoshi: "The eventual solution will be to not care how big [block size] gets." (250 points, 75 comments)
    4. Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks at all time high! (143 of last 1000) (191 points, 56 comments)
    6. Censored in bitcoin: "Bitcoin Core hashrate reaches 79.7%" (91 points, 61 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Transaction Fees - All Time (70 points, 18 comments)
  8. 1235 points, 40 submissions: chinawat
    1. Julian Assange just used the bitcoin block number 447506 as a proof of life. (199 points, 42 comments)
    2. "$3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day!" -- Brewster Kahle on Twitter (97 points, 3 comments)
    3. ‘Barclays took my £440,000 and put me through hell’ | Money (76 points, 22 comments)
    4. Venezuelan Police Arrest Eight Bitcoin Miners in Two Weeks, and the Country's Leading Bitcoin Exchange Suspends Operations (52 points, 2 comments)
    5. The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin (46 points, 11 comments)
    6. How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear (44 points, 6 comments)
    7. "The plan (#mBTC units) has been discussed amongst local #Chinese exchanges, & we believe it will appease the regulators, w/ "lower" prices." -- Bobby Lee on Twitter (43 points, 36 comments)
    8. "Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size, but is a one-time drop to 300 kB really the best way?" -- theymos (40 points, 68 comments)
    9. Buy bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. The Race Is On for a Bitcoin ETF (31 points, 14 comments)
  9. 1010 points, 17 submissions: 1and1make5
    1. Last 1000 Blocks - Bitcoin Unlimited overtakes soft-fork-segwit signaling (165 points, 25 comments)
    2. Again: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization - Roger Ver (101 points, 59 comments)
    3. cnLedger on Twitter - "@todu77 Contacted http://BTC.TOP . A different logic was used when dealing w/ (very occasional) empty blc. They'll update to BU only" (94 points, 6 comments)
    4. Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right - Brian Armstrong (93 points, 30 comments)
    5. Last 1000 Blocks - 20% of the Bitcoin mining network supports Bitcoin Unlimited (89 points, 4 comments)
    6. BTC.top current hashrate: ~100 Ph/s (71 points, 5 comments)
    7. Throwback Thursday: BTC.top mined their first BU block 1 month ago with ~31 Ph/s, today they have ~149 Ph/s (68 points, 6 comments)
    8. Epicenter Bitcoin 166 - G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (63 points, 50 comments)
    9. Coinbase Obtains the Bitlicense (53 points, 19 comments)
    10. Fun fact (doesn't mean anything): In the last 24 hours more blocks have signaled support for Bitcoin Unlimited than soft-fork-segwit (53 points, 5 comments)
  10. 984 points, 20 submissions: seweso
    1. Bitcoin unlimited is an expression of freedom. And freedom will always be misconstrued by paternalists/statists as something dangerous. (120 points, 64 comments)
    2. My hope for Bitcoin Unlimited is not to force a hardfork upon everyone, but to break through the censorship, to open minds. (106 points, 88 comments)
    3. Core threatening a POW change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (97 points, 58 comments)
    4. "We will run a SegWit release in production by the time [a 2MB hardfork] is released in a version of Bitcoin Core." (94 points, 84 comments)
    5. Blocked by Peter Todd for pointing out he started the propaganda war with his slippery slope video. (92 points, 41 comments)
    6. I can't wait to spend everyone's SegWit funds on a hard-forked >1Mb chain. ~ Seweso (72 points, 72 comments)
    7. BashCo putting his Bitcoin ignorance on display by stating "60,000 #Bitcoin transactions don't just magically appear out of thin air. #spam" (66 points, 12 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core developers discussing and deciding on Bitcoin economics again (47 points, 13 comments)
    9. Reaction to: why-bitcoin-unlimiteds-emergent-consensus-gamble (46 points, 9 comments)
    10. "@seweso Show me an instance where core pushed out a change and cost miners a block reward." ~ I can do that ;) (37 points, 6 comments)
  11. 883 points, 16 submissions: Shock_The_Stream
    1. Emin Gün Sirer: Finally getting to the crux of the battle. LN/Segwit/fee-market are a synonym for "high fees." Nothing about this tech requires high fees. (155 points, 78 comments)
    2. BTC.TOP !! - New Alltime High for BU blocks @199 ! BTC.TOP alone just mined 4 BU blocks within 47 minutes (115 points, 26 comments)
    3. The great halvening of Samson's Segwit Pool: Mission accomplished! 1 yr: 12.50%, 6 month: 11.10%, 1 month: 7.83%, 1week: 6.67%, 4 days: 6% (107 points, 56 comments)
    4. Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ... (107 points, 45 comments)
    5. BS of the week by Rusty Russell: "If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin" (102 points, 97 comments)
    6. Slush pool: Incredible bad luck for the Bitcoin Unlimited voters (43 points, 26 comments)
    7. The Bitfury Attack (43 points, 38 comments)
    8. 799! Jiang Zhuo'er teared down this wall! (40 points, 13 comments)
    9. Did Slush just stop mining segwit with the 'don't care' voters? (39 points, 36 comments)
    10. Fortune favours the bold: BTC.TOP with 300% luck today (30 points, 2 comments)
  12. 754 points, 10 submissions: AQuentson
    1. Price Shoots Up as Miners Checkmate and Bitcoin Unlimited Surpasses Segwit. (113 points, 28 comments)
    2. One Transaction Will Cost $400 if Bitcoin Hits $10,000 According to Jameson Lopp (104 points, 39 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Developer: Satoshi's Design Doesn't Work (100 points, 78 comments)
    4. Wow! Had no idea the BitcoinMarkets subreddit is completely censored. (90 points, 29 comments)
    5. F2Pool Will Not Upgrade Its Bitcoin Pool to Segwit "Anytime Soon" (89 points, 21 comments)
    6. The Bitcoin Market Needs Big Blocks, Says Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool (82 points, 21 comments)
    7. Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoins Stuck in Transaction Backlog (72 points, 8 comments)
    8. ViaBTC's Hashrate Increases to 12 Percent (58 points, 2 comments)
    9. “The protocol debate is not my priority." - Jihan Wu, Bitmain's Founder (24 points, 13 comments)
    10. Wow! Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoin is Stuck, Can't Move - What Happens if no Block is Found in One Hour (as has happened before) Will Bitcoin Literally Break Down? (22 points, 14 comments)
  13. 744 points, 10 submissions: BobsBurgers3Bitcoin
    1. Bitcoin Unlimited 1.0.0 has been released (274 points, 130 comments)
    2. Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" (260 points, 123 comments)
    3. 35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents (74 points, 18 comments)
    4. Former Fed Employee Fined $5,000 for Using Computer for Bitcoin (37 points, 5 comments)
    5. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (26 points, 0 comments)
    6. Bitcoin is 'a great hedge against the system' and could be the new gold (18 points, 1 comment)
    7. Bitcoin Will Change Money Like the Internet Changed Video (15 points, 0 comments)
    8. Is Warren Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin? (14 points, 3 comments)
    9. Bitseed Review – A Plug & Play Full Bitcoin Node (13 points, 2 comments)
    10. Bitcoin is soaring (and Business Insider does not change the title of the almost identical article published 3 weeks ago by the same author) (13 points, 1 comment)
  14. 732 points, 10 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
    2. "Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
    3. In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
    4. Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
    5. luke-jr defines "using bitcoin" as running a full node. Dictates that the cost of moving money ( a transaction) should exceed "using bitcoin". Hah (38 points, 17 comments)
    6. If it's not activating that is a strong evidence that the claims of it being dire were and continue to be without substance. nullc (36 points, 23 comments)
    7. I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
    8. "The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
    9. At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
    10. The flawed mind of jstolfi (13 points, 17 comments)
  15. 708 points, 7 submissions: knight222
    1. BTC.TOP operator: “We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.” (241 points, 252 comments)
    2. For those who missed it, this is how the hardfork with Bitcoin Unlimited will happen. (173 points, 79 comments)
    3. Blocks mined with Bitcoin Unlimited reaching 18% (133 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Unlimited is less than 1% away from outpacing Segwit for the last 1000 blocks mined (90 points, 44 comments)
    5. BU nodes peaked in the last days (28 points, 6 comments)
    6. Blockstream never tried to compromise but they will (too late). This is why: (22 points, 4 comments)
    7. BTC.TOP is having a good day (21 points, 6 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Adrian-X (3622 points, 821 comments)
  2. H0dl (3157 points, 563 comments)
  3. Bitcoinopoly (2732 points, 345 comments)
  4. knight222 (2319 points, 361 comments)
  5. MeTheImaginaryWizard (2043 points, 429 comments)
  6. Ant-n (1818 points, 387 comments)
  7. todu (1756 points, 265 comments)
  8. seweso (1742 points, 328 comments)
  9. awemany (1690 points, 401 comments)
  10. Shock_The_Stream (1647 points, 217 comments)
  11. Helvetian616 (1578 points, 206 comments)
  12. Egon_1 (1478 points, 162 comments)
  13. realistbtc (1299 points, 95 comments)
  14. BitcoinIsTehFuture (1231 points, 139 comments)
  15. LovelyDay (1226 points, 196 comments)
  16. thcymos (1172 points, 117 comments)
  17. BeijingBitcoins (1098 points, 58 comments)
  18. Yheymos (1061 points, 69 comments)
  19. steb2k (1058 points, 238 comments)
  20. ydtm (987 points, 132 comments)
  21. dontcensormebro2 (975 points, 106 comments)
  22. chinawat (972 points, 223 comments)
  23. increaseblocks (934 points, 73 comments)
  24. segregatedwitness (921 points, 101 comments)
  25. Annapurna317 (874 points, 146 comments)
  26. DaSpawn (817 points, 162 comments)
  27. insette (808 points, 91 comments)
  28. TanksAblazment (803 points, 150 comments)
  29. blockstreamcoin (787 points, 133 comments)
  30. MeatsackMescalero (774 points, 95 comments)
  31. satoshis_sockpuppet (745 points, 126 comments)
  32. BitcoinXio (739 points, 50 comments)
  33. jstolfi (734 points, 183 comments)
  34. singularity87 (720 points, 90 comments)
  35. Richy_T (704 points, 163 comments)
  36. redlightsaber (690 points, 138 comments)
  37. Leithm (686 points, 74 comments)
  38. ErdoganTalk (668 points, 252 comments)
  39. BitcoinPrepper (665 points, 89 comments)
  40. reddaxx (664 points, 105 comments)
  41. r1q2 (660 points, 110 comments)
  42. papabitcoin (653 points, 79 comments)
  43. 2ndEntropy (632 points, 76 comments)
  44. FormerlyEarlyAdopter (608 points, 92 comments)
  45. Coolsource (595 points, 116 comments)
  46. Peter__R (589 points, 43 comments)
  47. timepad (570 points, 62 comments)
  48. Rawlsdeep (564 points, 109 comments)
  49. themgp (560 points, 46 comments)
  50. ForkiusMaximus (558 points, 89 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
  2. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" by Egon_1 (529 points, 262 comments)
  3. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." by sandakersmann (472 points, 254 comments)
  4. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. by parban333 (400 points, 207 comments)
  5. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
  6. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. by BeijingBitcoins (307 points, 142 comments)
  7. Massive censorship on "/bitcoin" continues by BitcoinIsTehFuture (296 points, 123 comments)
  8. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "You can talk about anything in BTC and it won't be auto deleted" by BitcoinXio (291 points, 69 comments)
  9. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks exceed Core for first time, 232 vs. 231 of last 1,000 by DNVirtual (282 points, 84 comments)
  10. As relevant as it's always been by iopq (276 points, 15 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  2. 123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  3. 117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
  4. 117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
  5. 113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
  6. 106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  7. 98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  8. 97 points: bigboi2468's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
  9. 92 points: vbuterin's comment in [Mark Friedenbach] There is a reason we are generally up in arms about "abusive" data-on-blockchain proposals: it is because we see the potential of this tech!
  10. 89 points: Peter__R's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Purse.io Will Continue Operating! - Bitcoin.com Weekly News Show with Roger Ver Bitcoin Price Expectations - The Majority Expect Massive Increases Bitcoin Cash Back On Track Olivier Janssens's $100,000 Donation to Bitcoin {BTC} Projects CoinSummit London – Interviews with Olivier Janssens & Andrew Turner – Michael Jackson

TL;DR: Bitcoin mining pioneer and early investor Olivier Janssens marked the slightly more than three year anniversary of an ominous point in ecosystem history. “In 2016, I created a 2MB increase for Bitcoin,” Janssens explained, “and with Gavin [Andresen] on board, we quickly gained [consensus] with 80-90% of miners, businesses and users [….] Back in mid-May, we posted about bitcoin millionaire Olivier Janssens and an initiative he started to get the community to program a software platform that could replace the Bitcoin Foundation.A bounty of $100,000 was offered, and today, Janssens has announced a winner. We had a chance to make an interview with Olivier Janssens early adaptor back in London at CoinSummit.Olivier started mining really early back in 2010 and really knows how to live a great life as he was the very first who used his bitcoins to travel with a private jet using privatefly.com The dropping bitcoin price certainly has something to do with it. Several scandals and misstatements have also made them more unpopular in the past year, likely leading to a decrease in donations. One theory is that they spread themselves too thin in 2013 and 2014, and then a refocus on core development did not result in a re-energizing of the A few days ago, Foundation board member Olivier Janssens alerted the Reddit community of the organization’s recent troubles in a post titled, “The truth about the Bitcoin Foundation.

[index] [2114] [30664] [11277] [1023] [23413] [21751] [25379] [26909] [10968] [14458]

Purse.io Will Continue Operating! - Bitcoin.com Weekly News Show with Roger Ver

Many People believe that bitcoin price is going to $10,000, or even $100,000. What happens if it doesnt? Can it still survive. Lighthouse, the crowdfunding platform led by Bitcoin core developer Mike Hearn, was awarded the $90,000 bounty today that Bitcoin entrepreneur Olivier Janssens presented in May as a challenge to ... 4:09 - Olivier Janssens' Tweet ... Anticipating $1M Bitcoin Price in Just Three Years, Calls BTC ‘Biggest Trade of Our Lifetimes’ - Duration: 16:45. Crypto News Alerts 2,878 views. In this episode we talk to Olivier Janssens, a Bitcoin early adopter and investor, and his associate Andrew Turner. We discussed Olivier’s recent $100,000 bounty replace the Bitcoin Foundation. Also discuss crowdfunding platform Lighthouse, developed by Mike Hearn and Olivier Janssens at end video that was originally invented to solve funding problem in Bitcoin Core and I believe would ...

Flag Counter