“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”-- 1970 Life Magazine
"If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."-- 1975 Newsweek
"By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”-- Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund
Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Block Size Increase Hard Fork~ tylev
So, this is exactly the situation the Classic code was meant to prevent.~ Annapurna317
Fixing the issue before it becomes an issue. Classic was correct and full blocks are the largest problem that Bitcoin faces.
Leaders of Core had a childish little selfish tantrum about wanting to work on what cool stuff they wanted to build and wouldn't listen.~ papabitcoin
It would have been relatively safe and easy to introduce the 2mb HF if it was progressed collectively and collaboratively with good will by all parties.
All of this could have been avoided long ago. There is one person who is very influential who we know to be adamant about blocks being confined to 1mb.
Hardfork in July 2017 will be too late.~ satoshis_sockpuppet
If you read the statement by Peter "I don't have a clue about economics" Todd you might start to puke.
“Unfortunately Bitcoin simply doesn't scale well" How about you start to tell what exactly doesn't scale you fuckhead?
P.S.: The blockchain is growing indefinitely, if you don't like that fact you should choose something else than cryptocurrencies or come up with a better way.
This is classic narrowmindedness on PT's part.~ ferretinjapan
He'd also be the first one to say that the internet is not sustainable as it produces exponentially more and more data.
These guys are fucking idiots and really have no idea what they are talking about, all they see is "BLOAT!" and "TOO BIG FOR CURRENT NODES!" then react accordingly without even thinking about the fact that Bitcoin's usefulness mitigates these limiting factors almost entirely.
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.~ ydtm
Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin Protocol Role Modelshttps://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l0ugy/gavin_andresen_bitcoin_protocol_role_models/
There are limits on routing table sizes, but they are not top-down-specified-in-a-standards-document protocol limits.~ Gavin
They are organic limits that arise from whatever hardware is available and from the (sometimes very contentious!) interaction of the engineers keeping the Internet backbone up and running.
We've long established that the 1mb limit (or their refusal to remove it) has absolutely nothing to do with technical concerns.~ redlightsaber
It's a political matter, whose raison d'être we can only infer.
Time to stop the bullshit and the [s]quabbling. Chinese miners wake up! Time to try something new. It quite literally can't be worse than what's going on right now.
Fred Ehrsam / Coinbase basically says that Ethereum is the future of cryptocurrencyhttps://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kvqwj/fred_ehrsam_coinbase_basically_says_that_ethereum/
Bitcoin has become embroiled in debate over the block size - an important topic for the health of the network, but not something that should halt progress in a young and rapidly developing field.~ huntingisland
The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges.
Bitcoin’s “leadership” is ... toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of Core developers, recently referred to other Core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well-meaning dips***s.”
This was a good sobering read.~ veintiuno
It is also worth noting that Coinbase was left with little choice but to broaden its offerings given the current state of Bitcoin usability ...
When BS hijacked BTC away from being money, it screwed a lot of business and usage plans. ...
Praise be to the free market and the market place of ideas.
REPOST from 12/2015: "If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap." – Vibr8gKiwi~ ydtm
By the way, this shows that a certain other trending OP from today:~ ydtm
Why all the disinformation? Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees. Currently $0.05
...is total bullshit.
But that other OP was posted in an echo-chamber of censorship (r\bitcoin).
That is dangerous (for them), because it allows them to enjoy the illusion that they are right - when in reality, they are wrong, because they are ignoring the fact that full blocks DO matter: because the overflow goes elsewhere (into fiat, into alts, etc.).
We just got Blockstreamed! (Coinbase rebranding away from BTC)https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k455s/we_just_got_blockstreamed_coinbase_rebranding/
Coinbase Exchange to Rebrand Following Ethereum Trading Launchhttp://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-exchange-rebrand-ethereum-trading/
Bitcoin exchange and wallet service Coinbase is adding support for ether, the native cryptocurrency of the Ethereum network. ...
This is quite significant. I would interpret this as a loss of confidence in Blockstream to provide what customers need in a timely manner.Blockstream: The world will not wait for you.
While Blockstream wastes time figuring out how to stuff all the world's transaction data into their beloved tiny blocks, the market will move on to solutions that can actually scale and can scale NOW.
Gavin finally speaks - they are "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"~ aquentin
Gavin could post that the sky is blue and it would generate a shitstorm of controversy.~ borg
Opinions on Gavin over there are variously:~ nanoakron
1 - Why aren't you coding for Core?
2 - Which agency do you work for?
3 - Haha classic suxxor
A very telling series of questions that the false agenda has fermented and sunk in.
Core has solved the scalability issue!~ solled
By keeping the blocksize at 1MB they have motivated users to look to other blockchains. Problem solved!
It's actually kind of brilliant !~ realistbtc
Think about it: no need for super dangerous hard forks, and not even soft forks. No new code needed, no testing, nothing.
All it took was 2-3 years of endless stalling, organizing some fake conventions, a bit of character assassination and demonization here and there, nothing major. Done.
It was actually very well-thought-out. Congratulations and hat off to nullc adam3us and all their drones.
Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin~ ydtm
The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus".
Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus").
Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be.
Every binary vote has an opposite side. 95% consensus is actually 5% consensus of the opposing team. Would you like a 5% consensus system? No? Then you wouldn't like a 95% consensus system.~ kingofthejaffacakes
That's why 50% is the only valid threshold -- because it's the only one that makes both sides equal.
The only real threshold is 51%.~ Ant-n
Continuing on this road , soon Coinbase and Circle will probably allow to send and receive Ether, and Coinbase and Bitpay will offer the option to pay in Ether. At that point Gregonomic fee pressure will go out of the window.https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8c8g/continuing_on_this_road_soon_coinbase_and_circle/
The first mover led the ground work, but it's not an exclusive advantage.
Bitcoin needs to wake up from the Blockstream-induced coma !!!
This is so painfully obvious. The users do not want a "fee market". Blockstream is absolutely hell-bent on giving us one, despite there being no need for a "fee market" at this point in time. Therefore the free market will do its job and provide an alternative to Bitcoin, and the users will move to the alternative where they will get what they actually want.~ objectivist72
Bitcoin users are speaking out, and they want bigger blocks. Compare these 2 OPs: r\bitcoin: "Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees" (100 upvotes) vs btc: "Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they can only be fixed by raising the blocksize cap" (200 upvotes)~ ydtm
The block size issue has turned me off to bitcoin entirely, I no longer evangelize, no longer buy or use them. Blockstream has destroyed all the good-will I had for Bitcoin.~ jmdugan
Once the block sizes are larger, and continue rising with use, I'll be interested again. until then, Bitcoin can wallow in the fail
Maxwell the vandal calls Adam, Luke, and Peter Todd dipshitshttps://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/
Peak idiocy imminent @Blockstream-Core? Or not yet?~ Shock_The_Stream
Just to confirm, that is the CTO of Blockstream calling the President of Blockstream a "dipshit" on a public forum.~ Leithm
Andreas "I believe this is called a "Mexican Standoff". No segwit no HF. No HF, no segwit. Compromise time."https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kq2dm/andreas_i_believe_this_is_called_a_mexican/
2mb WAS the compromise FFS.~ tailsta
I thought 8MB was the compromise.~ dskloet
Actually 20MB was the compromise. The original plan was to just remove the cap and let miners implement their own norms.~ ForkiusMaximus
Damn fucking straight, the larger block side has been compromising for over a year and they have refused to compromise from day one.~ ferretinjapan
Now is not the time to compromise, now is the time to sweep them aside as they have brought nothing to the table.
These devs shouldn't even be given the time of day considering their open contempt for larger blocks and the miners should be finding devs that will give them what they need, rather than trying to negotiate with asshats that refuse to negotiate.
"It's truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation... but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit + confidential payment codes + other features is acceptable."https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kn960/its_truly_funny_how_blockstream_are_dead_against/
And also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...
It's a matter of ego and politics. From a computer science standpoint, Adam Back wanted the 2-4-8 mb scaling originally, which would have been completely safe (and smart).~ Annapurna317
Segwit is required for the Lightning Network and some other things Blockstream wants to centralize and profit from.
No better way to get something you need in there than making it necessary for scaling and saying it's the best solution.
Segwit is a backwards approach compared to the easier and cleaner solution of increasing the blocksize
maaku7: "I don't know anyone who is actually working on a hard fork right now (although I'm sure someone is). Keep in mind very few core developers were at the HK meeting and that 'agreement' is mostly not acceptable to those who were not there."~ Shock_The_Stream
The Hongkong Farce. Great job Core and Chinese/Georgian 'miners'!
HF will never happen unless miners switch client. The problem is miners still trust Adam & Co.~ olivierjanss
The day Mike Hearn left, he told me: "Both Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are extremely skilled manipulators, timewasters and both of them have been caught lying red handed. I strongly suggest you just ignore both of them. I do not plan to take part in Bitcoin related discussions further".
From my experience, Adam will tell you whatever you want to hear, but do something different behind your back.
Just look at his presentations he gave to the miners and others, they are full of lies and inaccuracies. This isn't rocket science.
I just can't understand why people keep buying bullshit from a guy who's not even a core dev, but president of a company that only benefits from making sure Bitcoin itself is crippled so people are forced offchain.
That was known opinion by Mark [Friedenbach, maaku7].~ r1q2
He said right after HK that it is not Core's agreement, that individual developers there were not representatives for Core.
And that the HF block limit increase is not an option.
I don't know what are miners still expecting and waiting for.
Is this information being sent to the Chinese bitcoin community?~ 8yo90
Who is doing that?
How does information like this not immediately change the ballgame?
There's more than enough developer talent in the Bitcoin space to ensure a hard fork comes off successfully, but the Core developers have divided the community with lies to make it more difficult to pull off. Instead of helping achieve it, they have created community-wide FUD.~ Reddit_My_Life_Away
My opinion is that we can't have Blockstream at all involved in Bitcoin any longer.~ mti985
If you keep them involved, even after a blocksize increase, we will suffer in the future.
Similar to malware, you have to remove it.
This is the correct way to decide "maximum blocksize"https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kwntk/this_is_the_correct_way_to_decide_maximum/
I'm very happy to see you researching Bitcoin Unlimited!~ Peter__R
Mike Hearn: Bitcoin’s “Young, Unripened Democracy” Suffers Under Authoritarian Developershttps://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8o7x/mike_hearn_bitcoins_young_unripened_democracy/
Hearn describes in the interview how people in the developer scene do not truly want the cryptocurrency to be decentralized.~ Mike Hearn
“They say they want so, but that’s not what they want. Bitcoin is a young, unripened Democracy, in which a group of developers hold the power. And this group is desperately trying to prevent a real vote on the future of Bitcoin.”
“[They] won’t vote against Core, because [they’ve] been told voting is dangerous,” Hearn elucidates. “The miners are not per se against proposals to increase the capacity, such as something like Bitcoin Classic wants. The miners refuse to vote. At this point, some developers, including myself, lost interest, because we realized it no longer was a debate about the block size. Suddenly it was trying to convince Chinese people democracy is a good thing.”
Sadly, he sounds like the voice of reason in a world gone mad.~ realistbtc
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.~ ydtm
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.http://38.media.tumblr.com/fa44a78d7d6f6a2e0536e611e43093a8/tumblr_inline_mjh5diUr7t1qz4rgp.jpg
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
PSA: when someone asks for info about a transaction getting stuck, stop saying that the fee was too low or his wallet did something wrong. The correct answer is that currently Bitcoin is broken.~ realistbtc
Artificial capacity restraint by Core devs is the correct answer.~ flamingboard
This is so true.~ canadiandev
I mean, look at the logic.
If $0.01 is not enough, and everyone sets it at $1.00, then it is still not enough because the number of transactions at the 'higher' price is still too many and blocks are still full with transactions being ignored.
This is why I think Blockstream's mission is to hurt bitcoin.~ usrn
I cannot believe that they genuinely can be so stupid to ignore this aspect.
The core devs (Wladimir and Maxwell) do not care about the price of bitcoin. They do not care to give investors a clear indication of what capacity will be in the near or mid future. This is contrary to the fact that everything else is known. Roger Ver is right.~ specialenmity
Investors (Hodlers) are a large part of what makes bitcoin valuable. Without a clear indication of what capacity is going to be in the future there is no clear indication of what the worth of Bitcoin actually is.
Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin.~ Roger Ver / ~ MemoryDealers
Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin.
Gregory Maxwell (nullc) & /bitcoin have deleted my posts~ taxed4ever
They have also banned me from any discussion on their subreddit.
I was simply posting that Gregory Maxwell (nullc) is lying when he says "the Chinese Bitcoin community stands behind us".
This is false, they do not.
In fact, a respected member from the Chinese Bitcoin community said this: "Do you know that what you are doing is harming bitcoin by spreading misinformation? I'm from China. I can just tell you the common sense in the Chinese Community of Bitcoin. No one likes BlockStream now! People in China all know that it is Greg Maxwell who is blocking bitcoin by limiting block size. I dare say, your company can never develop any business in China in the future."
Jihan of Antpool, great response in regards to Chinese Bitcoin discussion on /bitcoin I was banned from:~ taxed4ever
When you talking about "in fact", it smells like no fact. You are spreading very serious rumors about the mining network situation. Antpool has been connected to Relay Network and also testing a new network called Falcon after being invited. The total network orphan rate has been keeping lower and lower in the past months, which is an evidence that the network is working in a much better situation. Antpool in the past April have only 1 orphaned block, which is an evidence that there is no selfish mining situation - a selfish mining attack will generate higher orphan rate on both competitors and attackers. On the https://poolbench.antminer.link/, you can find ... the performance of a mining pool. (This is a third party site, this is fact.)
Antpool and other mining pools had made the position clear as water since in the Hong Kong meeting, that SegWit+HF [is] coming as package. If you just realized right now, ... the communication problem inside Core, you cannot blame anyone else. We will not activ[ate] the SegWit until seeing the promised (by "individuals" yes I know Maxwell could not be represented) HF code being released in Bitcoin Core. If everything is progressed according the HK Consensus, the SegWit will not be stalled. The SegWit as a very th[o]rough improvement/change [and] will need to be carefully tested and reviewed after its release, at least for several months. During which time the HF can be proposed, defined, implemented and released. While the max blocksize limit lifting can be activated later, but as the code is already contained in the release, most of the economic nodes in the network will be compatible with the coming blocksize bumping up.
Bitcoin is a worldwide economy infrastructure and it requires working together and moving forward. Greg, you need to have some self control from talking like a human flesh fascist propaganda machine, trying to attack anyone who disagree with you.
Please don't tag those concerns as "pro-altcoin". (Another evidence of your problematic speaking style.) The concerns are genuine concerns. Some of the concerns coming from people who hold very large stake of Bitcoin since early time. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the town. I also see some small blockers are very active in the competing coin development. You cannot use this methods to distinguish people at all. Then stop judging people's intention and unrelated behavior but focus on the problem itself.
The only thing I have to add is that you can't wait for Mr. Maxwell and his company to deliver their promise. It is a toxic arrangement and we need to focus on looking past them, repairing the damage and working towards the future. When there are too many lies and scandal involved, you have to cut your losses and walk away. Investors around the world will be confident once we start making firm moves. Positive press from Forbes will help repair confidence with investors.
Either way, thank you!
We are all committed to working together.
This is fine.https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kqdh8/this_is_fine/
Picture characterizing the situation very well!~ Amichateur
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)~ ydtm
ashmoran explains why Blockstream's behavior flies in the face of the Agile Manifesto, a guide that is widely applicable to open-source software development:~ BobsBurgers4Bitcoin
The essence of Gavin's point reminded me of the things the Agile Manifesto was meant to address. ...
The behaviour of Blockstream is like the most pathological cases of capital-E Enterprise software development I've seen.
Samsung Mow: "@austinhill @Blockstream Now it's time to see if Greg Maxwell is part of the solution or the problem."~ Egon_1
Not enough popcorn in the world for this.~ kanaarrt
Samson Mow is part of the problem.~ Domrada
Chairman Mow can be a very annoying creature~ hiddensphinx
He makes bad choices, he's unprofessional, he's cost us money, the list goes on and on.~ mfkusa
Trouble on the home front.~ buddhamangler
I don't think Greg has it in him to "give in"; he has to be "right" at all costs.
This is what I'm hoping, as, "giving in" will mean he'll walk away from Bitcoin.~ ferretinjapan
Why is it not recognized that ANY block size limit is a hack on a hackhttps://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kbcaa/why_is_it_not_recognized_that_any_block_size/
Bitcoin will NOT work right until the size limit hack is removed entirely. The limit is being leveraged to justify many actions. All of which would be moot if the limit did not exist.
You're absolutely right. Miners have always regulated the size of their own blocks and still do.~ cypherdoc2
We see it in the form of excluding zero-fee transactions, SPV mining, spam filtering, etc.
They will do the same without a limit.
All in the name of maintaining profitability.
It's true that almost every single argument Core makes for limiting the blocksize, if correct, should be what the miners/investors would do anyway if left to their own devices.~ ForkiusMaximus
On May 4th, 2016 BBC reporter Danny Vincent published a report called “We Looked Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine.” The reporter toured the facility of one of the largest emerging We looked inside a secret Chinese bitcoin mine. is a 21-year-old graduate who has been working as a miner for around a year. There is also the possibility that organised Chinese bitcoin Good news you can double your bitcoin or money into our bitcoin Miner software…. e.g ( you pay 1btc you get 10btc within 3 business days or $1000 btc you get $10000 btc within 3 business days, After we receive your btc or money and confirm it, then you get your btc or money into your wallet within 3 business days, our software Miner very fast & Legit, make money through legithacker381(dot In this category, there is a list of articles about mining cryptocurrency (miners, software, hardware for mining, manuals). Join us on bitcoinwiki.org. 14 Comments on Life Inside of a Multi-Million Dollar Bitcoin Mine in China Imagine if you lived life as a one of the four Bitcoin enthusiasts and miners in Northern China. Your government isn’t a big fan of an unsanctioned global currency like Bitcoin seeping into the Chinese market but isn’t standing its way right now.
[index]          
Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine - Duration: 9:17. Motherboard 4,507,473 views. 9:17. 109-Year-Old Veteran and His Secrets to Life Will Make You Smile Short Film Showcase - Duration: 12:39. tip jar: 1FEqW7sQrxqQbVtx3TpYMKYUuLU9CUEfmo James Bond Inside A Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine. The Life of a Miner 498,295 views. 10:07. ... Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine - Duration: 9:17. Motherboard 4,483,703 views. 9:17. Update - How to keep your mining rigs cool ... A LOOK INSIDE AMERICA'S LARGEST BITCOIN MINING OPERATION Rethea Newell. ... Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine - Duration: ... 109-Year-Old Veteran and His Secrets to Life Will Make You Smile ... bitcoin mining india bitcoin mining software cryptominingfarm crypto mining how to start ... Life Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine - Duration: 9:17. Motherboard 4,343,911 views.