11 Best BitCoin Wallets With Low Transaction Fees

If you need help or you're New to roms and emulation these are some tips

First thing first You need an Emulator i suggest RetroArch is a Newbie Friendly good all in one emulator this is a video to how to setup and use ReTrOaRcH
OpenEmu FOR MAC USERS THAT WILL NOT USE RETRO ARCH BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENOUGH LOOKING LIKE MAC UI OR THEY HAVE AN OCD OR something like that it's good anyways ( i didn't use it bc i'm not a mac user )
🕿︎♋︎◻︎◻︎●︎♏︎ ◻︎❒︎□︎♎︎◆︎♍︎⧫︎⬧︎ ♋︎❒︎♏︎ □︎❖︎♏︎❒︎◻︎❒︎♓︎♍︎♏︎♎︎✆︎
and a download Manger
Jdownloader ( download the jar version ) A photo to explain what to download (don't download the .exe version it has an adware in it )
or idm u can trial reset with this
a torrent clients (credits to Piracy wiki)
for mobile ( torrent clients ) [credits to Piracy wiki]
stay away from [credits to Piracy wiki]
second you need sources to download roms these are the best sites + some tips
sites :
ziperto
No intro romset ( you can download it directly without a torrent you CAN FROM HERE ) (If you don't want to download the whole romset for the system press view content )
AlvRo's Collection
Vimm's Lair
The Eye
GamesTorrents ( of course if u can torrent )
MEGA-ROM
N(itro)blog
THE MEGATHREAD
RomsUniverse
MOBAsuite
IDK?? A WIKI FOR ROMpacks?????
The Old Megathread idk why u need it
A guy who uploaded some roms but he didn't get attention
ROMstorge ( idk how to use this site )
Roms WIKI
Another ROMs site
Edgeemu
EmulatorGames ( the name is baaaaaaaad )
ROMsDownload
WoW Roms
cdROMance
Startgame ( wtf is this name )
Retrostic
ROMulation
If u Want to Check if the site is safe go to here and comment ur site url
Tips :
Tip #1 : If you're in a country that hate piracy like USA or Germany ( i think Germany have dmca or something ?? idk ) etc. stay away from torrent and stay away from http sites
( download Https Everywhere extension and enable encrypt all sites eligible option by pressing on the icon of https everywhere ) even if your browser included with it . because it will warn you if the site is http...
Tip #2 : FBI will not raid your house ( because fbi will not waste there time on you )
Tip #3 : https is your best friend because it's encrypted that means if you go to a https roms site
your isp will see (random numbers and letters) .com/.net/.org/.to/.site etc.
Tip #4 : install an adblock i suggest Ublock Origin
Tip #5 : install a pop-up blocker if you have a chromium based browser like Brave, Chrome, New Edge etc. i suggest this ( if you know a better one please give me the link ) poperblocker
Tip #6 The MegaThread is your OTHER BEST FRIEND if you want an rom head to the megathread and press ctrl + F and search ;)
Tip #7 DON'T DO NOT OPEN ANY ANY ANY .MSI .EXE/.DMG/.DEB or ANY OTHER FILE THAT you CAN OPEN WITHOUT AN EMULATOR THE FILE IT'S 2000% A VIRUS ( EXCEPT WHEN you DOWNLOAD RETRO ARCH [ or any other emulator OF COURSE ] ) AND DON'T OPEN .BAT FILES IT CAN DELETE SYSTEM32 FILE AND IT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FILES IN WINDOWS
Tip #8 Emulating is Legal but Downloading ROMs is ILEGAL ( OF COURSE IF you're LIVING IN A COUNTRY THAT DMCA IS A HOLY THING ) ;-)
Tip #9 If you're suspicious of a file u can scan it on VirusTotal or Hybird Analysis ( you need to upload the file because it will open it on a vm in there sever ).
Tip #10 I recommend using a controller if you have a xbox controller just connect it to your pc and you're good to go BUT if you have a dualshock controller (ps controller )
use DS4 Windows ( if you have a windows pc ) ( I Know it's the fork bc the og creator stopped working on it in 2016 or somthing like that )
or any other controller .
Tip #11 If you download a rom and it came in .rar .zip .7z .r001( if the rom came with multiple files like .r001 .r002 .r003... you need to extract just a one file) etc. you can use 7-ZIP or Winrar ( don't worry 40 days trial doesn't end ).

Tip #12 if the rom came in this order rom.rar.exe don't think to open it and if you hide the extension file from showing from the file name it will show like rom.rar but it's actually a .exe or .dmg etc.

Tip #13 if you have a linux pc or a mac that doesn't mean you will not get infected even Temple OS have malwares ( if you don't what's a malware is just search )​.
Tip #14 if u tired of link shorters and etc. use universal Bypass
Tip #15 Some good emulators :
Dolphin a wii and gamecube emulator ( check the compatibility list to check if the game work )
Citra 3DS emulator ( check the compatibility list to check if the game work )
BSNES HD beta if u want to play snes games on HD
PCSX2 the best ps2 emulator
EPSXE a little bit old but it's good (ps1)
DON'T use zsnes ( i guy on the comments said that )
RPCS3 PS3 ( check the compatibility list to check if the game work )
Xenia Xbox 360 ( check the compatibility list to check if the game work )
Cemu WiiU Emulator ( check the compatibility list to check if the game work )
a Decryptor for 3ds games if citra won't open the rom HERE
DS DeSmuME (OLD) ( if u have a good ds emulator give me the link pls )
Project64 N64
DOSBox DOS emulator ( check the compatibility list to check if the game work )
IF U HAVE any other emulator pls link it in the comments <3
Tip #16
Romsmania
CoolRoms
etc. are NOT SAFE
if you have any other tips share it =)
submitted by real_nyha454 to Roms [link] [comments]

"Read.cash Founder Threatens Ban & Permanent Fund Blacklist of 100 Users by Midnight London Time Tonight" Response from the read.cash founder

(Sorry that I post it here, the letters will be small, it would have been much better on read.cash, but it contains personal attacks on C. Edward Kelso and Shammah Chancellor, so I would have to ban me on read.cash for this post)
This is probably the most personal story I've ever published on the Internet on how your project will come back to haunt you and destroy your mind and your life.
CoinSpice should find enough "juicy" details here to humiliate me even further, I think they still could! I believe in their potential! Should I send you my nudes to post, CoinSpice, for you new article? (No, I'm not a girl, in case you're wondering)
Enjoy it if you like long reads. Warning: it contains quite a few jabs at some people.
So, you might have read this "piece" from afriendofsatoshi C. Edward Kelso Chief editor of CoinSpice https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/i067py/readcash_founder_threatens_ban_permanent_fund/fznpi0x/
I'm really disappointed in CoinSpice. Anecdote from the past about them: my interview with them was terribly handled. I started the interview with them with "English is not my native language, so feel free to fix any errors you see in my answer", what did they write in CoinSpice? "We were able to determine that he is not a native English speaker" Seriously, "were able to determine", Sherlock?... why did you even need to publish that? To add a bit of a sensation? But this new piece from CoinSpice just breaks through the floor... I'm speechless... If you are ever offered to being interviewed by CoinSpice - run away! Save yourself!

What happened

28 July, 2020
An uneventful day on read.cash, people posting pictures of flowers, telling stories how they met their spouses, doing contests about who will sponsor whom, posting articles about teamwork and interviews with prominent Bitcoin Cash figures. Seriously, read.cash guys interviewed tons of Bitcoin Cash supporters (After the interview with CoinSpice I never gave anoter interview to anyone fearing it will be exactly unprofessional as CoinSpice - trying to get every little dirt the could dig out there)
micropresident (the guy who does not yet know he's going to, very professionally, like a normal stable developer he is, later go on to tell me "fuck read.cash") publishes a contest where he calls for memes that contain the following phrases: "Amaury the Socialist Dictator", "Marc De Mesel is Calvin Ayre Lite") promising up to 2 BCH in return (I believe, I didn't read his rules) for these memes.
Since a lot of read.cash users are from Philippines, Nigeria and other poor countries, where $300 is a lot of money (maybe something you will make in a year), people proceed to create these memes.
This goes directly against the rules of the site that everyone must agree before they sign up, directly violating the rule: "No name-calling, trash-talking, personal attacks or insults."
I log in to read.cash and notice the homepage full of low quality posts attacking Amaury, Marc, ABC, upvoted to no end, tons of boosted posts and Shammah giving $$ left and right for this stuff.
I publish 2 responses where I tell people to remove the memes that contain personal attacks or face a ban. https://read.cash/@Read.Cash/the-state-of-things-33c3d68a and https://read.cash/@Read.Cash/post-a4935cbd
Most of the people agreed and removed the offending memes and had no problem with it, many said they were sorry.
u/micropresident in a very professional manner proceeds to tell us to "fuck [ourselves]" and tells he's building a clone (non-moderated I presume). He also quotes us very calmly and professionally adding: "Complete bullshit" referring to rules of read.cash
CoinSpice proceeds to publish the "celebrity upskirt" kind of article "Read.cash Founder Threatens Ban & Permanent Fund Blacklist of 100 Users by Midnight London Time Tonight". Emphasis mine, I just can't stand this kind of language... this is yellow press at best. It only lacks "Reason #2 will shock you!" in the title...
So, back to the story.

Why do we even have this rule?

Is it because I'm an egomaniac that hates people? Is it because I'm secretly funded by BSV? Is it because Marc de Mesel donated nearly $100,000 to the fund? Is it because I love censoring people?
No, no and no.
It's because I want Bitcoin Cash adoption. I frankly wanted Bitcoin adoption since 2013, alas, the tiny blocks and huge fees won't allow that. So I had to switch to Bitcoin Cash which kept Bitcoin idea going.
Do you have a friend that is not deep into cryptocurrency? Tell him/her to join the Crypto Twitter. They will look at it for five minutes and tell you: "Are you crazy? These people are constantly attacking and mocking each other. What if I do something wrong? Why are they doing it? Are they mentally ill? Is this really the money of the future?"
This will be his answer for nearly every site or platform that talks about cryptocurrency.
It's everywhere. But with Bitcoin Cash somehow it's very ingrained into the nature. I understand, Bitcoin Cash was attacked so often that it became a second nature of some people to attack everything they don't like.
Don't like Amaury? Let's attack him! Why? Don't care! I just don't like him!
Don't like Marc de Mesel? Let's attack him!
Don't like CSW and Calvin? - Let's attack them. - But why? They don't do anything bad to us now. - Wait, are you one of THEM? Let's attack or you'll be attacked! Fuck you, you and you and read.cash, fuck yeah! Attaccckkk!!!
This all seems totally crazy to a newcomer.
But what do we want to achieve with read.cash? Getting newcomers to use Bitcoin Cash. Without the drama or craziness. Just some flower pictures.
Up until 28 July, 2020 this was the case. People were posting innocent pictures, got payments from the fund, tipped each other, sponsored each other, yelled at me for not getting paid enough.
Occasionally, we had some dissenters, like *****, who proceeded to tell spammers that they are "fucking cunts", got a warning for that, left forever, deleting all articles, returned, started attacking people again, got banned for that, started telling people on memo.cash how stupid read.cash is because we didn't manually ban the spammers and wasted time programming software to detect them...
Ok, weird thing - she seems to recommend people to join read.cash now, which is confusing, so I removed her name.
Then there were people who wasted hours upon hours of my day by asking stupid questions, who got blocked (from me, not from read.cash)...
But mostly things were okay with read.cash (not with me though). We've got 12,000 users, very few incidents, the fund got a donation from Marc de Mesel for nearly $100,000 which will pay new users for a year or so. We gave away money to 5,700 people (for free)!
I want to stress one part here. Marc has donated (unconditionally) more than 97% of the fund. More than 30 times more than all of the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem combined donated.
Read that part again. Marc donated 30 times more than everyone else in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem combined! Unconditionally. I haven't received any condition about the donation use.
Marc even told us that he's willing to donate much more! Which we hastily declined, because read.cash is not profitable and it doesn't make sense to spend more than we would have gotten from ads if we were monetized.
read.cash can't be living off donations forever. It's unsustanable. So we spend via the fund approximately what we would have gotten if read.cash was plastered with ads.
But again, 12,000 users of read.cash is 97% MarcDeMesel's achievement.
That's 12,000 users of Bitcoin Cash.
Isn't "adoption" what you wanted?
Yet, the guy who said "fuck read.cash!", all the while getting top payments from the read.cash fund, proceeds to create a contest about "Marc is Calvin Ayre Lite"...
Told that this is a personal attack, replies "Complete bullshit!" (exact quote)
Note: Marc is actually OK with memes about him and asked us directly to revert our policy to allow the [offensive] memes It wasn't Marc's initiative, it was mine.
And it wasn't only Marc who were being mocked.
I'll admit right here - I don't like Amaury's actions, I don't like IFP (and I listed my reasons), but I'll warn/ban anyone directly attacking him on read.csah (not his thoughts, but just him). Wanna discuss how Amaury's idea about DAA is bad? Feel free! Wanna call him an idiot? Welcome to ban'sville, population - you. Well, usually a warning, then a ban if you insist on doing that.
The same will go for CSW, Calvin or anyone anywhere.

Are you crazy? Did you just say you'll protect CSW and Calvin? We've got a BSV shill here! Attackkk!!!!

No, no and no. We have no funds from BSV (as far as I know, the fund is non-custodial and permissionless - anyone can donate and cancel at any time), I've never contacted Calvin or CSW and I've been attacked by BSV people on multiple occasions and was accused of being a BSV shill on multiple occasions (besides people telling me to "fuck [my project]").
One thing I figured early on is that if you allow people to do something, you need to apply that rule to everyone.
Otherwise, you are a hippocrite and you should hang your head in shame.
If you allow people to mock and denigrate Amaury, Marc, BSV, BTC supporters, that's the fine line that you'll have to keep later on, when BTC and BSV supporters come. How come you're allowing people to mock a BTC supporter, yet you protect a BCH supporter? That's dishonest.
So we will have to allow BTC and BSV supporters to mock us and denigrate us. Because that's the rule. You allowed it!
They will be right.
So if we allow people to attack other people (even if I don't like them), everybody would be entitled to attack everybody.
That's where you start your journey to becoming a Crypto Twitter, where you will be attacked for nothing, where a snowball will roll on you (it did on me, but thats another story), where people would start to stalk you and try to ruin your life, because you like the coin they don't like.
That's a place which normal people won't ever join.
Read it again: No adoption for you, no world money!
So, you either have "no censorship" (which is really moderation) or you have normal people. Choose one, choose wisely, you won't be able to change it later.
We chose "normal people".
The plan was working fine (almost) until the eventful post.
But I will not revert this policy. I hope I explained why.

Koush: But you allow worse crimes to happen on read.cash!

Ok, here's a yellow press sensation worthy of coinspice.io! Listen carefully! #1 will shock you!
I am... one guy.
Yes, read.cash is a one-man shitshow.
I'm the backend developer, I'm the frontend developer, I'm the system administrator, I'm the moderator, I'm the policy maker, I'm the one who replies to 100+ emails daily on [email protected], I'm the one getting up to 200 notifications per day on read.cash, I'm the one who writes articles, I'm the one who wakes up at night when a server fails, I'm the one who logged 1000 hours developing read.cash according to my IDE's time tracking plugin, I'm the one responsible for the bug that took your money, I'm the one who returned you your money, I'm the one fighting spam, I'm the one writing code to catch spammers, I'm read.cash.
I'm the one responsible to keep 7,500 comments per day (that's one comment every 10 seconds, 24/7), 800 articles per day, 400 short posts per day clean. See the stats yourself, the damn thing is growing and growing...
It is an impossible task. But I do read every one of 100+ reports sent to me per day. And each one of them is a moral dilemma for me - what to do here. This guy has copied an article from the Internet, but edited it so that it looks like another article, what do I do here? Ok, this guy is posting non-sense - is that against rules? It's surely annoying, but doesn't violate the rules. What to do here? Now try this 100 times a day. This guy, Koush, I know, he's a good guy, but now he's attacking the only guy who really helped read.cash when no one else did? WTF do I do here?
That's why I'm always telling people to report anything that they see that violates rules. I can't be everywhere. I can't make the right decision every time too. I'm a regular fucking person. Two legs, two hands, one medium-sized brain.
Ok, to be honest, a few months ago I asked a developer friend to join me to help (paid with my own money, not using read.cash fund for that), so he helps some 10 hours per month. That helps, surely, not enough.
Though I'll still call read.cash we, as it is still a registered company.
BTW To be clear - I never got any money from the read.cash fund, but I spent more than $5,000 giving away. Here's a screenshot from an internal tool that I call "the random rewarder": https://i.imgur.com/ucQEvVM.png
As you can see, I'm entitled to about $1.31 - $1.39 for today, but I get $0.00. That was always the case, because I strongly believe that I must give it to people of read.cash to attract new users.
I also gave away 100% of the funds that came to me as tips on read.cash.
BTW Did you notice that on the screenshot the guy who said "Marc de Mesel is Calvin Ayre Lite" and "fuck read.cash" got the top payment from the fund, which is at the moment 97% funded by Marc de Mesel?
My friend, the developer, who joined me, told me a few days ago: "I read your history on read.cash, you sound progressively ..." "..depressive and passively aggressive," I ended his sentence, "I know."
Yes, I know. I'm pretty passive agressive already, because every day I met with demands from users. "Why am I not getting paid?" "I work for read.cash for 8 hours a day, why is my pay so low?" "I sent some money and now I have $0.01 less than I should?" "How do I get sponsors?" "I think this guy is cheating!" "Hey, our family of 20 people joined read.cash and it says that I have 19 colocated accounts on the same IP! That's not true!"
I loathe my morning, when I open my email and there's 50 new alerts from Sentry, there are 100+ emails from users demanding stuff from me, accusing me of being unfair, wrong, an idiot, telling me "fuck read.cash"!
etc.. etc.. etc.. daily grind.. I never experienced anything like that. I was always a lead developer or manager managing small teams of 5-10 people. Nothing close to this shit I experience now.
You get progressively less sensitive. You start to think that it's ok to just delete an email, since you can't reply to everyone. You can't research why someone of 12,000 people didn't get paid, since the algorithms are now so complex that you yourself will have to spend a week just researching one guy why he gets $0.10 instead of maybe $0.50... you have no idea who your users are. The project is out of your control. But you can't do anything, because it's not profitable enough to even cover the server costs, let alone hire additional programmer or a support guy.
Then one day you log and see the beautiful garden full of dog shit. Crappy memes. A guy telling you "fuck you, there's $25K for the clone of this!" Thank God Shammah didn't offer that $25K for my head...
You find this about the only guy who really helped read.cash with money and demanded nothing in return (not a single condition was made) being compared to a midget version of a guy who was in a FBI Top Wanted list!
Again, Marc says he's ok with this, I'm not! Whoever did this meme is an asshole, I don't have any other words for this human. (Yes, I would have been banned on read.cash for this alone. You can ban me here, I no longer care...)
You find yourself increasingly grumpy, angry towards those around you, your family, because everybody is angry at you in the Internet, people are demanding and people is attacking the only people you can trust (Roger, Marc)...
You think about your previous nice cozy job. You think about 5 recruiters sending you daily mails to just name the price to join their company. You realize that these 9 months you could have made maybe $100,000, maybe $200,000 sitting on your ass, managing 5-10 people like you always did.. Instead you spent 9 months, $5,000 in Bitcoin Cash, got grumpy and depressed.
You start to ponder why you do this and whether you should even continue.
That's your future, Mr. Shammah Chancellor!
That's the reality of running a social media platform with cryptocurrency.
I will be happy to see your platform, Mr. "fuck read.cash", grow and flourish, but I warn you - it's not going to cost you $25K, but much much more. It's going to eat you alive if you are mildly successful with it and you have a little bit of conscience.
You will be attacked, you will be spammed. People will tell you "fuck you!"
I honestly have no idea why you think you will fare better than yours.org or honest.cash...
What's your advantage? being censorship free, so that people can shit and pee on each other?
Then one day 9 months later, 12,000 users, $50,000 in tips later, a guy will come in and tell you "Fuck you, Shammah and your project! Fuck you! I'm building a clone for $5K of this shit of a platform!" You will look at the clock where it's 8pm, you will look at your inbox, where there's still 50 more people yelling at you.. you'll ponder why do you even do this...
That day you'll understand me, Mr. Chancellor. Or maybe not, I have no idea what kind of a human being you are. Maybe you're reading this and laughing madly: "poor pussy can't take a beating! boo-hoo! Get off the internet, you wuss!" Maybe that's your thoughts, I don't know. You certainly don't seem to care about other people's feelings dismissing them as "complete bullshit".
Well kept gardens die by pacifism is a wonderful read about this.
Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little—or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting. (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions—for then the fool dominates conversations.)
Peace, and out.
P.S. I remind people that there's an ongoing fundraiser going for mainnet.cash, so anyone agreeing with "fuck read.cash" policy of Mr. Chancellor should cancel their donations while there's still time. It's very easy to cancel. Don't give your money to idealistic fools like me.
P.P.S. I blocked u/afriendofsatoshi, so somebody please forward it to him so he can humiliate me further, only on coinspice.io! Subscribe now!
submitted by readcash to btc [link] [comments]

[Updated Jan 2020] How many Irish Subs are there really?

The first time I made this post I had uncovered 500+ Irish related subs on reddit, from the abandoned to the large. This was some time in 2016ish and I have continued to try and track as many new subs as I can.
Below is the updated list, again including some of the Discord Servers & useful other external links (although not counted) and the count stands at 710 plus some redirects/banned subs/karma farms. I have also continued to included some of the North American Subs that could be mistaken for Irish just for information.
As you can see from the notations many, many of them are inactive but it's more about finding as many of them as possible than anything else.
If anyone knows of, or can find, new ones not listed below, throw them in the comments and I'll add them to the list. A rich vein of new ones continue to be towns etc, people from Ireland (bands etc) and products.
To any owners of Discords that appear on this list or not, let me know of perma invitation links as I know some of the below have expired but I'd rather have them as reminders/ place holders than not.
Notes:
To anyone who owns a sub...put a description in the bleedin' sidebar! (Growing is easier if people don't have to guess what the sub is for)
If you find a sub you might like to resurrect you can head over the /redditrequest and request to take it over. See their sidebar for full rules and process.
(P) = Currently Private Sub
(O) = Out of Use
(m) = Authors Notation
(NI) = Northern Ireland
(R) = Redirects

Visiting & Moving to Ireland

Also see ‘Hobbies & Interests’ and ‘Locations’ below.
General Discords

Irish Language/ As Gaeilge Subs

History & Heritage

Media, Music & Art

Media Discussion
News Subs
Media Creatives
Music
Underground Film & Music
Instruments
Dance
Art, Design & Visual

IT, Developers & Tech

Developers
Infrastructure
Data & Crypto
PC Parts
Gaming
  • See below

LGBT

Womens Issues

Teens

Health & Well-being Issues

Education Subs

Second Level
Third Level
Clubs/ Societies & College Interests

Political Parties/ Discussion

Discussions
Parties
State Institutions
Political Issues
Political Satire
Pol Discords

Model Government & Related Subs

Model Houses & Parties
Model Media
Model Meta & Misc

Religion & Religious Issues

Sports

GAA
Football
Teams
Fans Subs
Rugby
Other Sports

Jobs

Legal, Financial & Property

Legal
** Legal System**
Financial
Community Assistance
Bargains & For Sale
Earn Credit
Property

Transport

Rail
Buses
MotorBikes
Cars

Hobbies & Interests

Drug Culture
Vaping
Books
Board Gaming
Crafts
Computer Gaming
Discords
Tech Interests
Food & Drink
Dating & Social Groups
Events
Outdoor Activities
Weapons Enthusiasts
Fun Subs
Fun Discords
Places to Moan
Fandom Subs
Celtic Subs
Discords
NSFW Adulty Subs
Meta & Alternative Ireland Subs
Misc Defunct/ Unknown Content

Ireland not local enough for ya? Subscribe to:

Locations

Counties
Cities/ Towns/ Townlands
Areas
Northern Ireland
Ex-Pat Communities
Location Based Discords

Sandboxes

Not Irish Subs

  • Irish Subs Count: 710 + 9
submitted by louiseber to ireland [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

*Must read for newcomers* My friend worked in the Bitcoin industry (broker) for a couple of years and has been involved in the crypto world since 2014. This is what he had to say about the recent politics of btc when someone asked him on our crypto trading channel

(He first sent this article https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2, then followed up with this reply when someone told him he had no idea what he just read)
"There was a big scaling debate and in the end there were two sides. Those that wanted to scale using bigger blocksize (short term solution that doesn't work long term and also causes more centralization) vs those who wanted to scale using changes in the code to make the network more efficient aka SEGWIT+second layer scaling solutions (bitcoin becomes massive settlement layer, and second layer solutions can take care of verifying your $3.25 coffee payment).
On the big block side you had (most) miners because they were only able to see the short term benefits of increased blocksize and they do not care about network centralization. Also, a chinese miner controlling a sizeable chunk of the network's hashrate had access to (and was in the process of patenting) this technology called ASICBOOST which is an exploit in bitcoin code that allows you to "cheat" and get extra hashing power out of your miners. Essentially they had an unfair advantage and the KEY is that the segwit upgrade fixes this exploit. Alongside these miners you had a couple of misguided (but incredibly wealthy because of early adoption) individuals who either have a reason to see bitcoin fail (like they are heavily invested in altcoins now) or they are too pigheaded to back down when wrong (or some of them I'm sure are not actually intelligent enough to understand they are wrong).
On the Segwit side you had all the core developers (the guys who worked side by side with satoshi to build all this and have been contributing to the code for years every day), the majority of the userbase, AND the vast majority of bitcoin companies. The two sides were basically arguing over who had control over bitcoin - was it the miners, or was it the users? Was it those who chose which software to run (users) or was it those who verified transactions for that software (miners)? (The answer as you will see shortly is Users). So basically these miners were stalling the upgrade because it would mean the end of their unfair (AND patented) advantage. This massive stalemate in the debate caused a community led uprising known as the User Activated Soft Fork movement (UASF). These guys basically said "We're switching our nodes to Segwit software starting Aug 1 and we will be rejecting all mined blocks that do not comply with the new code". This forced the miners' hand as they realized they would either be forked off the network or have to go along with the new upgrade to make sure everything continued to go smoothly (including their profits).
The movement gained enough support to freak out some big money bitcoin CEOs who got together in a room with the miners and made a deal behind closed doors known as the New York Agreement (NYA). This is where Segwit2x was born. The key to note here is that not a single core dev was invited to this meeting (in fact, not a single competent dev in general was invited). The terms of the deal were: You guys agree to implement Segwit now, and then we'll agree to an increase in block size later (November). Deal was made and obviously the majority of the user community was in an uproar because bitcoiners hate closed door deals (and they should for good reason).
That being said, it got Segwit activated because it gave miners an easy way to safe face and go with segwit and the community instead of seeing their profits get wrecked by a messy chainsplit. However, do you remember that sneaky miner who had patented the ASICBOOST technology? Well he was part of the NYA and he decided to fork off anyway and create Bitcoin Cash. So stop right here and realize that the only reason we have bitcoin cash is so that some miner with a ton of hashing power could keep his unfair advantage over the network (he stills mainly mines bitcoin by the way because he would go out of business if he switched entirely to bitcoin cash). Also at this point, technically the NYA was broken because the whole point of it was to avoid a chainsplit and go with segwit followed by a block size increase whereas bitcoin cash was a clear chainsplit.
So for a few months everything was ok because we had Segwit, core devs were still with us, and (supposedly) anyone who wanted bigger blocks had forked off to bitcoin cash right? Wrong. See it turns out that those guys who made that backroom deal with the miners also had their own interests which involve removing the current core developers from their (imagined) seat of power. It is classic old school business politics - they don't care that core the devs are based around principles of meritocracy and peer review. They just want to have more of a say in the direction bitcoin takes. At this point, you might be thinking, "Ok but its fair for companies who use a product to have a say in its development, right?" NO. Not when the "product" at stake is meant to be an incredibly secure, incorruptible ledger that can hold trillions of dollars in wealth and still be hosted online accross the world.
The fact is that no one understands the code better than the core developers and no one has more of an interest in seeing bitcoin stay decentralized and secure than these guys do. These guys literally cum buckets everyday to how much they love coding bitcoin. If Satoshi is Cypher Jesus then these guys are his Apostles. And on the other hand you have some severely misguided corporate buffoons who think they have the knowledge to negotiate a compromise with a group who has nothing but short term profit in their sights. And when the core developers are like "wtf dude?" and the community stands behind them, then these guys resort to essentially trying to kick core out of bitcoin by starting a new chain. A new chain which was based on a compromise that no one wants or needs anymore. And the excuse these CEO's are hiding behind is "We don't want to go back on our word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
ur word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
Now we come to the current situation where there are basically 4 sides
  1. Core developers, and those supporting them
  2. The (remaining) signers of the NYA and those supporting Segwit2x
  3. Malicious third parties who just want to see bitcoin fail (invested in altcoins/bitcoin cash or they are the Joker and just want to see shit burn)
  4. Innocent bystanders
The core developers are continuing to code and improve bitcoin and they are working on second layer solutions. They haven't stopped development and have actually made a TON of beneficial changes to the code since the Segwit upgrade allowed them to. Being non-political or atleast being shit politicians, these guys do not know how to handle themselves with other people and either don't speak much or come off as pretentious d*bags (trust me I used to hate them before I smartened up).
The remaining NYA signers. I say remaining because alot of companies left when they saw the massive backlash from the community. The only signers left are miners and then a group of around 30 companies which all have ties to Barry Silbert's holding company Digital Currency Group and suprise surprise who do you think got that NYA meeting together in the first place? Silly Silbert indeed. He's basically trying to do a sort of corporate take over of bitcoin where he decides who is writing the code and how they write it. Oh also I should note here that these guys have 1 developer working on the Segwit2x code. Yes 1, Jeff Garzik. Coding ability? Mediocre at best. All he did was copy and paste the entire bitcoin core code (because its open source) and changed the one little value that dictates block size. He changed a 1 to a 2 haha! And when he tried to make other changes he made critical mistakes that had to be fixed by CORE DEVELOPERS hahahaha! So how the f* does that even compare to an army of geeks who have been coding bitcoin for years and coding in general for decades who are all constantly trying to find mistakes in each others' work. SO people supporting Segwit2x are either severely misguided, hate core devs, or don't have all the information to make an informed decision.
Now the malicious actors. These are people who have a vested interest in seeing bitcoin crumble. I'm talking about big altcoin investors and bitcoin cash supporters (yes the guys who have ASICBOOST and want are the reason for this whole mess in the first place). And Segwit2x has presented them with a beautiful vector of attack. Divide and conquer. Right? And whereas with bitcoin cash there was replay protection (meaning the split was pretty clean and bitcoin was largely unaffected) this time they haven't got any planned - so should things go through as planned, things could get messy.
Then you have all those innocent bystanders who don't really know what to think anymore. Things have gotten so convoluted and complicated that it is hard to follow who wants what anymore. These are the people who will get the most fucked by something like Segwit2x because they won't understand the risks as it is happening and they won't have the knowledge to know which wallets to support. Imagine Segwit2x happens and one wallet sticks with the core version of bitcoin and the other wallet supports the segwit2x version but they both just say "Bitcoin".
That is why people are soooooooooooooo strongly opposed to Segwit2x more than anything. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hostile takeover attempt. And at this point that should be more than clear because why else would you still support the compromise made with miners who broke the compromise by creating bitcoin cash? No one wanted Segwit2x in the first place. People wanted bigger blocks, or segwit, not both. Segwit2x was never a faction in the debate. It was a faction that was spawned by those who created the NYA because they saw an opportunity take control of the software development from a group of developers who have been working on it for years and who strongly oppose corporate interests getting involved in bitcoin development."
(I will name and shame the main malicious\misguided actors and add details based on personal discussion with him and add articles for further reading)
Barry Silbert
Erik Vorhees
Jeff Garzik
Roger Ver
Jihan Wu (the miner mentioned) - only wants more money and power
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
there you guys have it, a comprehensive rundown of bitcoin politics from the point of view of someone who supports the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto to the core. I hope it informs those of you who got confused by the FUD.
Bitcoin belongs to the community, always and forever
submitted by HavocMMA to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/bitcoin recap - November 2017

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the eleventh monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best), memeless overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can find recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in November 2017
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - December 2017

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the twelfth monthly Bitcoin news recap. (Yes I'll keep doing these in 2018)
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best), memeless overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can find recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in December 2017
Thanks all for being part of the ride, it's been a great year for Bitcoin. Happy new year to you and I hope we can make 2018 even better!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone (the lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited) voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What is up with all these Bitcoin devs who think that their job includes HARD-CODING CERTAIN VALUES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USER-CONFIGURABLE (eg: "seed servers")?

Recently, the developer of SegWit2x / BTC1, Jeff Garzik, caused some controversy by hard-coding the "seed servers" which Bitcoin uses to first start hunting for "peers".
Worse than that: apparently one of the "seeds" is a company he started, variously named Chainalysis / Skry / Bloq - which apparently specializes in de-anonymizing Bitcoin transactions and performing KYC/AML - and which also has apparently entered into agreements with Interpol.
Seriously, WTF???
This is what "Bitcoin devs" still consider to be part of their "job" - hard-coding parameters like this, which affect everyone else on the network - and which could easily be "exposed" to be made user-configurable - instead of being baked into the source code and requiring a friggin' recompile to change???
This recent event has refocused attention on the fact all these past years, most of these seed servers in "the" existing (legacy) client running on most of the network have _also been hard-coded - to domains under the control of "devs associated with Blockstream".
I don't like the list of seed servers in Bitcoin Core
Pieter Wuille - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Matt Corallo - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Luke Dashjr - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Christian Decker - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Jonas Schnelli - supports BIP148
Peter Todd - supports BIP148 - worked for Samson Mow who works for Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6nd50h/i_dont_like_the_list_of_seed_servers_in_bitcoin/
The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit
In The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit a user complains that btc1 changing the seed servers to servers run by some companies (see commit) equals a "corporate takeover of bitcoin". I never really took much care who runs these seed server, although they do posses a certain power over the network as correctly pointed out by P. Todd in the same thread:
...and the key thing with that is being able to control what nodes a node connects to can be a very powerful tool to attack new nodes, as it lets you prevent a node from learning about the valid chain with the most work.
[...]
4 out of 5 people running the bitcoin networks seed servers are directly associated with Blockstream!
I don't even believe that Blockstream is actually plotting an evil, forceful takeover of bitcoin using the seed servers. However it beautifully counteracts Adam's "decentralization is everything" arguments. What is most troublesome to me, is that this simple information is not allowed to appear on r\bitcoin at all.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6n8vqc/the_corporate_takeover_of_bitcoin_illustrated_in/
Seriously?
Bitcoin is almost 9 years old - and most people are still running clients which use hard-coded values (which require an inconvenient recompile to reconfigure) for the "seed servers"??
Maybe this is, in some sense, part of the reason why people like BlueMatt and Luke-Jr and Pieter Wiulle think they can lord it over us and tell everyone else what to do? ...because they have quietly (and unfairly / incompetently) hard-coded their own friggin' server domain names directly into everyone else's client code, as our "seed servers"?
Is the low level of "quality" we - as a community - have become accustomed to from our devs?
Do other clients (Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC) also gratuitously hard-code their "seed servers" like this?
Here's a post from a year ago regarding "seed servers" in Classic:
How come "classic" uses the same alert keys/DNS seeds as Core?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44atsp/how_come_classic_uses_the_same_alert_keysdns/
Meanwhile, here's the main question:
Why are any "serious" Bitcoin clients still "gratuitously" hard-coding any values like this?
Why has our "ecosystem" / "community" not naturally evolved to the point where we have some public "wiki" pages listing all the "good" (community-recognized, popular) seed servers - and every user configures their own client software by choosing who they want from this list?
(Maybe because we've been distracted by bullshit for these past few years, fighting with these very same devs because they've refused provide any support for users who want bigger blocks?)
What would users have to do if (God forbid) something were to happen to the servers of those 4-5 seed servers which are currently hard-coded into nearly everyone's clients?
In that situation (assuming some "new" seed servers quickly appeared) people would be have two options:
  • Edit their C++ source code and download/install a (trusted, verified) C++ compiler (if they don't already have one), and recompile the friggin' code; or
  • Wait until new binaries got posted online - and download them (and verify them).
Seriously?
This unnecessary "centralization point" (or major inconvenience / bottleneck) has been sitting in our code this entire time - while these supposedly knowledgeable devs keep beating us over their head with their mantra of "decentralization" - which they have actually been doing so little to maximize?
Psycho-Socio-Economic Side Bar
Serious (but delicate/senstive) question: How many of these "devs" have developed (possibly unconscious?) behaviors in life where they try to make users dependent on them?
"Vendor lock-in" is a thing - a very bad thing, which certain Bitcoin devs have exhibited a tendency to inflict on users - in many cases due to rather obvious (psychological, social, and/or economic) reasons.
We should gently (but firmly) reject these tendencies whenever any dev exhibits them.
Our community should expect and demand an accessible, user-friendly interface for all user-configurable parameters - to maximize decentralization and autonomy
  • In "command-line" versions of the client program, these kind of parameters should be:
    • in a separate config file - using some ultra-simple, standard format such as YAML or JSON
    • also configurable via options (eg, --seed-server) upon invocation on the command-line
  • In GUI versions version of the client program (using some popular cross-platform standard such as Qt, HTML, etc.) these kind of parameters should be exposed as user-configurable options.
Yes, these user-configurable values for things like "seed servers" (or "max blocksize") could come pre-configured to "sensible defaults - so that the software will work "out of the box" (immediately upon downloading and installing) - with no initial configuration required by the user.
Yes: Even the blocksize has always been user-configurable - but most users don't know this, because most devs have been hiding this fact from us.
Three recent posts by u/ForkiusMaximus explained how Adjustable-Blocksize-Cap (ABC) Bitcoin clients shatter this illusion:
Adjustable-blocksize-cap (ABC) clients give miners exactly zero additional power. BU, Classic, and other ABC clients are really just an argument in code form, shattering the illusion that devs are part of the governance structure.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/614su9/adjustableblocksizecap_abc_clients_give_miners/
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/602vsy/clearing_up_some_widespread_confusions_about_bu/
Note about Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin Unlimited:
There is a specific new Bitcoin client called Bitcoin ABC, which functions similar to Bitcoin Unlimited - with the important difference that Bitcoin ABC is _guaranteed to hard-fork to bigger blocks on August 1_.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Documentation for the behavior of these various hard-forks is currently still rather disorganized :-)
All serious devs should be expected to provide code which does not require a "recompile" to change these "initial, sensible" default parameters.
I mean - come on. Even back in the 80s people had "*.INI" files on DOS and Windows.
Nearly all users understand and know how to set user-configurable values - for decades.
How many people are familiar with using a program which has a "Preferences" screen? (Sometimes you may have to close and re-open the program in order for your new preferences to take effect.) This is really basic, basic functionality which nearly all software provides via a GUI (and or config file and/or command-line options).
And nearly all devs have been offering this kind of functionality - in either command-line parameters, config files, and/or graphic user interfaces (GUIs).
Except most Bitcoin devs.
The state of "software development" for Bitcoin clients seems really messed up in certain ways like this.
As users, we need to start demanding simple, standard features in our client software - such as accessible, user-friendly configurability of parameter values - without the massive inconvenience of a recompile.
What is a "Bitcoin client"?
After nearly 9 years in operation, our community should by now have a basic concept or definition of what a "Bitcoin client" is / does - probably something along the lines of:

A Bitcoin client is a device for reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain.

Based on that general concept / definition, a program which does all of the above and also gratuitously "hard-codes" a bunch of domain names for "seed servers" is not quite the same thing as a "a Bitcoin client".
Such an "overspecialized" client actually provides merely a subset of the full functionality of a true "Bitcoin client", eg:
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables connecting to certain "seed servers" upon startup (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables mining blocks less that a certain size (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
One of the main problems with nearly all Bitcoin clients developed so far is that they are gratuitously opinionated: they "gratuitously" hard-code particular values (eg, "max blocksize", "seed servers") which are not part of the whitepaper, and not part of the generally accepted definition of a "Bitcoin client".
This failure on the part of devs to provide Bitcoin clients which behave in accordance with the community's specification of "Bitcoin clients" is seriously damaging Bitcoin - and needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
Right now is a good opportunity - with so many new Bitcoin clients popping up, as the community prepares to fork.
All devs working on various Bitcoin client software offerings need to wake up and realize that there is about to be a major battle to find out which Bitcoin client software offering performs "best" (in the user-interface sense - and ultimately in the economic sense) at:

reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain

The Bitcoin client software offerings which can optimally (and most simply and securely :-) "satisfy" the above specification (and not merely some gratuitously overspecialized "subset" of it) will have the most success.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

DIY Bitcoin Mining: Hardware (part1) - YouTube WTF Happened to BITCOIN?! - YouTube Is BITCOIN MINING Profitable RIGHT NOW In Mid 2019? - YouTube How To Mine Bitcoin On Android - YouTube What is Bitcoin Mining? - YouTube

Bitcoin mining is the process of creating new bitcoin by solving a computational puzzle. Bitcoin mining is necessary to maintain the ledger of transactions upon which bitcoin is based. Get a Bitcoin Wallet and Mining Software. Before you join a mining pool you will also need Bitcoin mining software and a Bitcoin wallet. You will also very likely need an ASIC miner, since GPU mining will likely never be profitable again going forward. Some hardware wallets and mining software. Mining Pools vs Cloud Mining . Many people read about mining pools and think it is just a group that ... Bitcoin is Secure. Bitcoin miners help keep the Bitcoin network secure by approving transactions. Mining is an important and integral part of Bitcoin that ensures fairness while keeping the Bitcoin network stable, safe and secure. Links. We Use Coins - Learn all about crypto-currency. Bitcoin News - Where the Bitcoin community gets news. Compare that process to a mining software that will get your computer work from a remote server (pool), perhaps modify how your GPU works (think increasing clock speeds, setting voltage targets, etc.), and put stress on your machine. Knowing that these two types of programs have similar processes makes it pretty easy to see why an antivirus program would classify it as malware, it’s just ... bitcoin mining hardware; bitcoin mining rig; bitcoin mining software; blockchain; coin exchange; coin market cap; coin values; crypto coin news; crypto market cap; crypto marketing news; crypto mining ; crypto news; crypto regulation news; crypto security; crypto security news; crypto values; crypto wallet news; cryptocurrency; digital currency; digital currency issues; digital currency map ...

[index] [22219] [30200] [27293] [980] [38938] [11699] [37153] [47961] [2247] [10913]

DIY Bitcoin Mining: Hardware (part1) - YouTube

There are several ways to get bitcoin. But did you know you can do it from your own phone? Today, Maria talks about how to mine bitcoin on android! Just foll... Squarespace link: Visit http://squarespace.com/techquickie and use offer code TECHQUICKIE to save 10% off your first order. Why did Bitcoin's value crash aft... Bitcoin Mine Earn Bitcoins With best Bitcoin MIning Games! Free BTC! Link : https://bit.ly/2qyIvLd 5 Steps To Building A Profitable Home Internet Business In 2017 Link Of The Article : https://goo ... David Grossman enters a cryptocurrency maze to find out how powerful computers mine digital currencies such as Bitcoin. Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news ... TIMESTAMPS: Antminer S9: 6:03 Antminer S17: 10:17 Articles and hashtags referenced:#bitcoinnews #bitcoinmining #BitcoinBillionaire GET A Chance To WIN $100 B...

#