Mike Hearn: Underfunding is Leaving Bitcoin Development in ...
Mike Hearn: Underfunding is Leaving Bitcoin Development in ...
5 Challenges Currently Facing Bitcoin (According to Mike ...
Mike Hearn : "Bitcoin a échoué" - Bitcoin.fr
Bitcoin - P2P Foundation
Bitcoin-Wirtschaft. Alles über Kryptowährung - BitcoinWiki
Mike Hearn, Chair of the Bitcoin Foundation's Law & Policy committee is also pushing blacklists behind the scenes
Bitcointalk discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.msg3581480#msg3581480 Hearn posted the following message to the legal section of the members-only foundation forum: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/505-coin-tracking/ If you're not a member, you don't have access. I obtained this with the help of a foundation member who asked to remain private. He's promoted blacklists before, but Hearn is now a Bitcoin Foundation insider and as Chair of the Foundations Law & Policy committee he is pushing the Foundation to adopt policies approving the idea of blacklisting coins. I also find it darkly amusing that he's now decided to call the idea "redlists", perhaps he has learned a thing or two about PR in the past few months. All Bitcoin investors need to make it loud and clear that attacking the decentralization and fungibility of our coins is unacceptable. We need to demand that Hearn disclose any and all involvement with the Coin Validation startup. We need to demand that the Foundation make a clear statement that they do not and will not support blacklists. We need to demand that the Foundation support and will continue to support technologies such as CoinJoin and CoinSwap to ensure all Bitcoin owners can transact without revealing private financial information. Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.
I would like to start a discussion and brainstorming session on the topic of coin tracking/tainting or as I will call it here, "redlisting". Specifically, what I mean is something like this: Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet. I have previously elaborated on such a scheme in more detail here, along with a description of how you can avoid the redlist operator learning anything about the list's users, like who is looking up an output or who found a match. Lately I was thinking about this in the context of CryptoLocker, which seems like it has the potential to seriously damage Bitcoin's reputation. The drug war is one thing - the politics of that are very complex. Extortion is something else entirely. At the moment apparently most people are paying the ransom with Green Dot MoneyPak, but it seems likely that future iterations will only accept Bitcoin. Specifically, threads like this one concern me a lot. Summary: a little old lady was trying to buy bitcoins via the Canada ATM because she got a CryptoLocker infection. She has no clue what Bitcoin is beyond the fact that she needed some and didn't know what to do. The risk/reward ratio for this kind of ransomware seems wildly out of proportion - Tor+Bitcoin together mean it takes huge effort to find the perpetrators and the difficulty of creating such a virus is very low. Also, the amount of money being made can be estimated from the block chain, and it's quite large. So it seems likely that even if law enforcement is able to take down the current CryptoLocker operation, more will appear in its place. I don't have any particular opinion on what we should talk about. I'm aware of the arguments for and against such a scheme. I'm interested in new insights or thoughts. You can review the bitcointalk thread on decentralised crime fighting to get a feel for what has already been said. I think this is a topic on which the Foundation should eventually arrive at a coherent policy for. Of course I know that won't be easy. -Mike Hearn
Governance is a set of processes to create, enforce and periodically review rules. To varying extents, each and everyone of us governs ourselves every day, as do our friends, families, communities, companies, etc.
People make mistakes. That's OK, it's human. If you repeat the same mistakes, you become enslaved to those who benefit. Future mistakes can be avoided by learning from your own (or other's) experiences. Lessons learned can be consolidated and generalized into rules. Governance emerges.
What are some attack vectors of weak governance?
Weak rules: Exploiting weak rules by making / encouraging mistakes in spite of the need for rules to prevent them. Examples: Lack of rules, rules with loopholes, inexact rules or rules that miss the mark completely.
Weak enforcement: Exploiting weak enforcement by making / encouraging mistakes in spite of existing rules preventing them. Example: Allowing the disregard of rules.
Weak review: Exploiting weak rule review by weakening rules or enforcement. Examples: corrupting the rule creating process in order to create corrupt rules, or corrupting the enforcement of rules.
What are the implications of weak governance?
As sure as "if a government CAN print money, it WILL", opportunists take advantage of weak or even "negotiable" attack vectors in order to subvert the project for their own benefit. Indeed, the rules themselves do not belong in the free market. If you really want to get philosophical about it, you are confiscating the social benefit of the free market by moving Adam Smith's invisible hand back into the the free market and making it a visible, negotiable commodity. Or, with apologies to Betrand Russell, the consensus of governance belongs in its own "metamarket" and should not be mixed with the object consensus market.
But seriously, why? Rules restrict freedom and I want to live in a free society.
Well, if you believe you are free while being subverted by getting encouraged to repeat your mistakes for the benefit of others, read no further, you are free to do so. However, avoiding governance altogether is worse than even weak governance because it has the biggest attack surface. You become enslaved, but hey, at least you would be "free" from rules. So you see, it's not about eliminating governance in order to maximize freedom. It becomes a constraint problem. You may ask yourself, "How much/little governance do we need?" It could be about maximizing the effectiveness of governance under the constraint of maximizing the freedom of the body to be governed under the smallest rule set, for example.
Who am I?
Nobody. But if it really matters to you, I'm a longtime lurker and Bitcoin oldtimer from 2010, bought my first coins in 2011.
I can not nor do I want to dictate how Bitcoin Cash should govern itself, however I do believe a necessary condition for survival is for the community to build a consensus for stronger governance. People who benefit from Bitcoin Cash's current weak governance have an interest to keep it that way. It's become their negotiable rule, and are merely a rational actor on behalf of their own interest. Asking yourself "Does Bitcoin Cash repeat mistakes? If so, can and do others potentially benefit from them?" would be a good place to start. Another place to start would be Mike Hearn's prophetic AMA from 2 years ago, which I strongly recommend rereading in its entirety. "Does Bitcoin need a Foundation or some other form of formalized governance?" was one of his many insightful last questions he left for the Bitcoin Cash community. So...
Is it time to talk about governance? ....Again?
Thank you for listening, thanks for understanding. Feel free to discuss.
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
I'm extremely critical of the Coin Validation scheme and believe that blacklisting in general is inconsistent with the design goal of Bitcoin, but I think that we need to avoid casting aspersions on people in our effort to maintain Bitcoin's fungibility. The fact is, Hearn merely asked for discussion on a blacklisting scheme that warns end users when they receive coins from addresses linked to crime. He acknowledged that blacklisting has downsides and asked for arguments for and against it. That's not him pushing for anything.
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
*OpenBazaarwascrossed-outaftertheirS2Xsupportretraction,seeeditatbottom. These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets. We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it. Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin: Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer. Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin. DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG: http://dcg.co/who-we-are/ Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting: Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey) And then there's the "Board Advisor," Lawrence H. Summers: "Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers Blythe Masters: Former executive at JPMorgan Chase. She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings, a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services. Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall. It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right? So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo. (BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.) "Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik." https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/ So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you: "Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo." Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value? Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time? It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem. Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers. So, to recap:
DCG's Board of Directors and Advisors is almost entirely made up of Central Bankers including one currently sitting Member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another who was Chief Economist at the World Bank.
The CEO of the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement (Barry Silbert) is an ex investment banker at Houlihan Lokey. Also, Mastercard is an investor in the company DCG, which Barry Silbert is the CEO of.
The company overseeing development on Segwit2x, Bitgo, has a product/service that seems to only have utility if transacting on chain and using 0-Conf is inefficient or unreliable.
Segwit2x takes power over Bitcoin development from core, but then literally gives it to central bankers and Mastercard. If segwit2x goes through, BTC development will quite literally be controlled by central bankers and a currently serving member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Consensus! JGarzik: "RBF would be anti-social on the network" / Charlie Lee, Coinbase : "RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin" / Gavin: "RBF is a bad idea" / Adam Back: "Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism" / Hearn: RBF won't work and would be harmful for Bitcoin"
Repeating past statements, it is acknowledged that Peter’s scorched earth replace-by-fee proposal is aptly named, and would be widely anti-social on the current network.
— Jeff Garzik
Coinbase fully agrees with Mike Hearn. RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin.
— Charlie Lee, engineering manager at Coinbase
Replace-by-fee is a bad idea.
— Gavin Andresen
I agree with Mike & Jeff. Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism.
— Adam Back (a founder of Blockstream) Serious question: Why is Peter Todd allowed to merge bizarre dangerous crap like this, which nobody even asked for and which totally goes against the foundations of Bitcoin (ie, it would ENCOURAGE DOUBLE SPENDS in a protocol whose main function is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDS)?? Meanwhile, something that everyone wants and that was simple to implement (increased block size, hello?!?) ends up getting stalled and trolled and censored for months? What the fuck is going on here??? After looking at Peter Todd's comments and work over the past few years, I've finally figured out the right name for what he's into - which was hinted at in the "vandalism" comment from Adam Back above. Peter Todd is more into vandalism than programming. Message to Peter Todd: If you want to keep insisting on trying to vandalize Bitcoin by adding weird dangerous double-spending "features" that nobody even asked for in the first place, go sabotage some alt-coin, and leave Bitcoin the fuck alone. This is a repost for some history: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=btc
Longtime Bitcoin visionary Mike Hearn anticipated fork 7 month ago, witnessing increasingly dictatorial and rushed decisions by ABC developers
Mike Hearn in an AMA on btc 7 month ago about Bitcoin Cash: "... Some things are being overlooked. If history repeated itself that would be a crying shame. Hard forking is an implementation mechanism, not a governance mechanism. Governance is a process, and often an institution, for arriving at a decision. A hard fork is just the software event that makes it real. I note with some alarm that Bitcoin Cash is planning a timed hard fork in just one month, with no attempt to measure support or whether people are ready or even agree. The content is not going to be controversial in this community now, but a lot of organisations would find it hard to schedule and test a software upgrade on one month's notice. There's a risk that miners who do upgrade will be split onto a minority chain by accident even if everyone intends to upgrade, and have to roll back, making them even more conservative than they already are. Governance was one of the causes of the split and so needs the most analysis and change. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing that at the moment. Multiple competing implementations is what we tried with Bitcoin XT and it didn't work. Ultimately the internet is a lawless place, and a sufficiently committed group will always be able to wipe out any nodes they disagree with to prevent people from expressing their opinions. Formalised governance mechanisms can help avoid this by coordinating a group decision in ways that can't be so trivially attacked, and if you look at Ethereum, they have the Ethereum Foundation and other ways to do it. I think that would help a lot. Right now I don't see anything that would prevent a repeat of what happened before, especially given the underlying psychological causes of the Core/Cash divide." Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/89z483/ama_ask_mike_anything/dwul86v/?st=jozvrskv&sh=64c8404a (http://archive.is/BIsn4)
Circle has still not responded to Peter Todd about whether they are implementing censorship or surveillance technology
so let me summarise, mike hearn is a developer that has been pushing for blacklists, censorship, supporting regulation .etc he is a crony in the worst way. peter todd is the developer who has done loads for bitcoin. the anonymity techniques in dark wallet were invented by him. he works for the people. mike hearn wants to censor peter todd. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6412027#msg6412027 circle is a new company that is always promoted by the foundation and their crew of people. they always appear at the top of conference lists for finance .etc http://bitcoin2014.com/http://www.bitfin.com/ jeremy allaire (circle ceo), makes statements that bitcoin needs to abandon its libertarian roots. we need to take this plaything away from the anarchists kind of attitude. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-abandons-anti-establishment-wall-street/ mike hearn is working with circle: http://www.coindesk.com/circle-advisory-board-members-burns-appointment/ circle is working on tracking and surveillance tech: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6403720#msg6403720 they refuse to answer questions (this is one of many, can't find the rest): http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25ou9f/good_morning_reddit_we_know_youve_been_wondering/ mike hearn says the bitcoin dev model needs to change. backing up gavin (chief scientist of bitcoin foundation who is actually more like a figurehead to legitimise the foundation)... this is his way of pushing out elements by formalising the dev process to stop people to participate and take control. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/28zts3/mike_hearn_interview_quotes_progress_on_the/ circle also this month made a similar statement (on coindesk): http://www.coindesk.com/circle-ceo-jeremy-allaire-issues-challenge-bitcoins-core-developers/ note how he says "unwelcoming to new participants" - same words as mike hearn. if you want to dev bitcoin, there's nothing stopping you. go write code or participate. don't try to assert control. it's all related, bitcoin foundation being official with their claim to legimitimacy but no merit to back that up. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322328.msg3460051#msg3460051 "Just got a call from the bitcoin foundation. They wouldn't go on the record to comment on the article but just kept telling me "off the record" that you lot [Dark Wallet] have no credibility and that a much better story is some venture capitalist yesterday investing $9m in bitcoin..." ~email from journalist when we were doing DarkWallet crowdfunding. btw check this, http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2646ei/bitcoin_foundation_has_4600000_in_assets_90_in/ and despite all those resources they have done jack shit for bitcoin. there is some big corruption going on here. foundation people are all flying all-expense paid fancy trips, paying themselves high salaries whilst most wallet developers and the opensource projects (which people use) in this space are without resources. they have contributed nothing to the community. there's been no proof otherwise besides some minor grants for ~$10k or so. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/ people are like "oh dear, we need better legislation" without realising the foot in the door danger. it's like the used car salesman who rips you off with an overpriced crappy car which you jump on after "he speaks to the boss" (i.e smokes a ciggy), knocking down his initial high offer. wow! what a bargain! G8 magazine, June 2013 "Protecting digital economies": "If the leaders of the European Union and United States could be convinced to take a lead on these initiatives [banning Bitcoin], that would be a huge contribution to making the internet a safe place for financial transactions. At the same time, it would also strike a blow against those who would try to destroy the fabric of our world’s well-being." JP Morgan, Feb 2014 "The audacity of Bitcoin": "But followers of financial history know the limitation of a system based on a fixed or slow-growing money supply: it imposes uncomfortable financial discipline on governments, households and corporates. [i.e governments, consumers, the corporations" (goes on to talk about how printing dollars was used to fund WW1 and the Vietnam war as a good thing) ECB, Oct 2012 "Virtual currency schemes": "Authorities need to consider whether they intend to formalise or acknowledge and regulate these schemes. In this regard, a likely suggestion could sooner or later involve virtual currency scheme owners registering as financial institutions with their local regulating authorities. This is a similar trajectory to the one PayPal has undergone, as it was granted a banking licence in Luxembourg in 2007 after its service became popular. This is not an easy step, but it looks like the only possible way to strike a proper balance between money and payment innovations on the one hand, and consumer protection and financial stability, on the other." Mark my words. The problem is not with this regulation needing to be fixed. They will probably tone down the proposal and it will be hailed as a victory within the community, yet be another step toward normalisation of their activities. http://www.coindesk.com/ben-lawsky-friend-foe/ "The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose squelching the money laundering first. It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.” ~ Ben Lawsky funny he's affiliated with chuck schumer too who is a populist and someone who in the early days was very anti-bitcoin (silk road). i love the whole tone of this propaganda piece which is like "he's such a nice guy". I bet he has good manners too. maybe you all appreciate this article, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin
Blockstream employee asking to remove Gavin from Foundation.
I received this email: Hello,It's my understanding that the foundation is essentially defunct and bankrupt.. that being said.Is there any chance gavin could be removed as "Chief Scientist"?He is actively abusing his position to push XT.Regardless of your personal view on XT this is bad for bitcoin. I will try to remain neutral on the subject, but at this point I want to ask a probably valid question: Blockstream is paying all the core devs which are opposed to a block size increase. Does blockstream have an economic benefit from not having a block size increase? Blockstream received a $21 million investment. If the blocksize does not increase, can blockstream's sidechains be used to solve it? Current core devs and payroll:
Gregory Maxwell, Blockstream co-founder and chief technology officer, opposed
Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder, opposed
Wladimir J. van der Laan, MIT, neutral?
Gavin Andresen, MIT, supports
Jeff Garzik, Bitpay, supports
Other respected people:
Adam Back, Blockstream co-founder and president, opposed
Lukejr, (has said on irc that he's employed by blockstream?), opposed
Mike Hearn, self employed?, supports
I would like to finish with a quote form the Blockstream website: “As Bitcoin evolves, Blockstream will play a huge role in helping it maintain its momentum, by making it easy to add new capabilities to the platform. And Blockstream’s success will in turn generate new waves of technical and entrepreneurial innovation — it will help make Bitcoin the kind of open, highly adaptive platform upon which a vast array of complementary products and services can be built.” If blockstream makes money doing what Bitcoin is missing, isn't that an incentive to not improve Bitcoin itself? Where is the line drawn? Who decides?
Tipping / Giving Tuesdays - Today week we are raising donations for a food drive here in Barbados. Security handled by Bitt's deep cold storage multi signature solutions - First 1000 comments get free bitcoin!
TODAY WE WILL BE FOCUSED ON RAISING DONATIONS FOR A FOOD DRIVE HERE IN BARBADOS Bitt.com has gracefully assisted us in providing the deep cold storage multi signature wallet solution. We want to maintain complete openness with /bitcoin. All funds will be right there for perusal - spent funds will have scanned invoices and clear explanations. We think transparency is paramount and are taking strives to ensure the community feels that their pledges are actually going to the hungry. I have personally pledged 1.9 BTC - Bitt & Changetip have also agreed to donate towards the cause. We will be recording parts of the event so /bitcoin may share in what we have all helped to create. PLEDGE FOR THE FOOD DRIVE BY EITHER DONATING HERE: 3Jma5Nh2kLjpXmbQ2WWDVj8mMn3Kx8zaNh or via changetip - all tips will be sent across to that address. If you have another crypto currency which you wish to donate in please write it in the thread and we will PM you directly to assist you. ### PLEASE CONSIDER PASSING MY TIPS ON TO THE HUNGRY OR OTHER CHARITIES :D ###
Lighthouse is an amazing decentralized crowd funding system, developed by Mike Hearn and completely running on Bitcoin. Several great projects help developers and charities to reach their goals and there are many more worth of your support. Pledge by heading over to Lightlist
$100,000 bounty completion - call to core devs and you!
Posted by Olivier Janssens. Twitter: @olivierjanss https://twitter.com/olivierjanss Hi Everyone, Now that Lighthouse has been released (and its looking great!), it is time for the final (important) step! There is still $50,000 remaining in my bounty, which will be given to the Bitcoin core devs, as promised. This is a call to the Bitcoin core devs to put their projects online so we can start backing them massively. I would also like to ask everyone to motivate them to do so. I will follow the community in backing the ones that are wanted the most: The moment a project reaches half the required funding, I will complete the other half, and I will keep doing that until the $50,000 runs out. We are very close to getting core development and Bitcoin itself truly decentralized. This in return will help streamline development immensely. To assist in this process I am also running for Bitcoin Foundation board member. My goal when elected is to remove core development out of the Foundations hands, and have Gavin and others directly paid by the community. Mike Hearn has already put a couple of his projects online at https://www.vinumeris.com/projects/core (there are more in the menu on the left). I would also recommend anyone with a Bitcoin Foundation membership to active their voting powers at https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/election/ - Without activating upfront, you will not be able to vote on February 13. If you would like to see more about my platform, you can go to https://bitcoin-election.consider.it/olivier-janssens?results=true I would also recommend you to have your second vote go to Cody Wilson. He has a similar agenda. Thanks again for all your support! TODO / TL;DR 1) Motivate / Call to core developers to put their Bitcoin core dev projects online. 2) You should sponsor the projects you like the most - As soon as a project reaches half its funding I will complete the other half (until my $50,000 runs out). You can already sponsor Mike Hearn’s projects at https://www.vinumeris.com/projects/core 3) Those with a Bitcoin Foundation membership, activate your voting powers now at https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/election/ and vote for me and Cody Wilson on February 13 so we can help decentralize core development. https://bitcoin-election.consider.it/olivier-janssens?results=true Original bounty thread: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25sf4f/100000_bounty_for_software_platform_that_can/ Winner announcement thread: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/29n8o0/100000_bounty_winner_announcement/
Consensus! JGarzik: "RBF would be anti-social on the network" / Charlie Lee, Coinbase : "RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin" / Gavin: "RBF is a bad idea" / Adam Back: "Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism" / Hearn: RBF won't work and would be harmful for Bitcoin"
Repeating past statements, it is acknowledged that Peter’s scorched earth replace-by-fee proposal is aptly named, and would be widely anti-social on the current network.
— Jeff Garzik
Coinbase fully agrees with Mike Hearn. RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin.
— Charlie Lee, engineering manager at Coinbase
Replace-by-fee is a bad idea.
— Gavin Andresen
I agree with Mike & Jeff. Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism.
— Adam Back (a founder of Blockstream) Serious question: Why is Peter Todd allowed to merge bizarre dangerous crap like this, which nobody even asked for and which totally goes against the foundations of Bitcoin (ie, it would ENCOURAGE DOUBLE SPENDS in a protocol whose main function is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDS)?? Meanwhile, something that everyone wants and that was simple to implement (increased block size, hello?!?) ends up getting stalled and trolled and censored for months? What the fuck is going on here??? After looking at Peter Todd's comments and work over the past few years, I've finally figured out the right name for what he's into - which was hinted at in the "vandalism" comment from Adam Back above. Peter Todd is more into vandalism than programming. Message to Peter Todd: If you want to keep insisting on trying to vandalize Bitcoin by adding weird dangerous double-spending "features" that nobody even asked for in the first place, go sabotage some alt-coin, and leave Bitcoin the fuck alone.
$100,000 bounty winner Posted by Olivier Janssens. Twitter: @olivierjanss https://twitter.com/olivierjanss Hi Everyone, This thread is to announce the winner of the contest http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25sf4f/100000_bounty_for_software_platform_that_can/ First of all I want to thank everyone for their submissions, ideas and positive feedback. There were a lot of great candidates, and it was very difficult to make a choice. I am now confident though that I have selected the best possible winner. I have also selected a runner up because these guys deserve to get a prize for what they accomplished. Before I go into the details of who won, I want you to know the rationale behind my choice. The initial question was: What is the best platform to replace the Bitcoin Foundation? To start off, we have to ask ourselves: why do we need a Bitcoin Foundation in the first place? In other words, which purpose does the Bitcoin Foundation serve? According to their website, it is ‘Keeping Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence’. I guess those 3 things somehow failed to apply to the Bitcoin Foundation itself, as they want to be the main representatives of Bitcoin, and as a result also on Bitcoin. Further analysing the Foundation, the main thing they are doing right now is funding some of the core Bitcoin developers. And I might add, they are not doing a very good job at that. Since people expect the Bitcoin Foundation to take that role, there is no real initiative to fund the developers directly. As a result, the developers are underfunded, because the Bitcoin Foundation does not have that much money (it got lucky with the price of Bitcoin rising and it’s memberships fees being paid in Bitcoin since it’s inception). They have admitted this buffer won’t last and is going to be a serious issue in the future. We also don’t know how much they are paying the developers and how much money they have left, since their transparency is pretty much non-existent. The funding could stop at any time and endanger Bitcoin even more. There have been highly concerning reports about the core devs being chronically underfunded, and as a result, Bitcoin development is grinding to a halt. As such, and to guarantee the (political) independence of the developers, the community should start funding the developers directly, ASAP. Next to that, the Bitcoin Foundation has been doing some lobbying with Washington. Again we are lacking serious transparency here. It would be much better if we as a community can select our lobbyists directly and actually know what they are doing. Good lobbyists can come forward with a proposal and set their goals. We can then decide directly to fund them or not. Which is pretty much what is happening all over the world without the Bitcoin Foundation. People are coming out of the trenches and have their own lobbyists involved with their local governments. The same thing applies to organising conferences. Do we really need a Bitcoin Foundation to organise the one big conference? No, as has been proven many times over . There are many big conferences that are a huge success, and none of them are organised by the Bitcoin Foundation. We can do this ourselves. Now, the question remains, what is the best way to organise all of this? Do we need a platform that simulates the Bitcoin Foundation, but with a better voting mechanism? A sort of "direct democracy"? After careful consideration, the answer is no. Such a "direct democracy" will still have the overhead of politics, getting people elected, etc. Bitcoin is apolitical. I know it takes time to get out of this mindset, but Bitcoin truly liberates the world beyond politics. We should not attempt to recreate unnecessary overhead or middlemen. Let’s have Bitcoin set us free. And for this very reason I have selected Lighthouse from Mike Hearn as the winner. Winner: Lighthouse (Mike Hearn)
Crowdfunding platform, running completely on the Blockchain. Assurance contracts which send money back automatically if goals are not met.
Will be able to fund Bitcoin core devs directly. They propose their schedule and goals, and they can set extra bonus features when they get extra funds (such as with Kickstarter).
Will allow lobbyists to make proposals and be directly funded by the community, according to their capabilities
Will allow many other community initiatives, such as supporting adoption in Africa by sponsoring ATMs, etc
The sky is really the limit. And it will not create any political overhead, we can select the projects we want to support directly. Also, Mike Hearn wants to get developers directly funded through the platform. Having a core dev behind this platform is a big boon to getting this off the ground. Mike has agreed to release the platform as open source before the end of August. He will be awarded $40,000 on completion. After the platform is live, I will put an additional $50,000 towards the first core dev crowdfunding project that gets made on it. This should help them become independent the moment it gets released, and hopefully will start streamlining Bitcoin core development again. http://www.coindesk.com/new-decentralized-crowdfunding-platform-reshape-bitcoin-landscape/ Edit: More info and screenshots at Mike's blog http://blog.vinumeris.com/2014/07/02/vinumeris-and-olivier-janssens-team-up/ Runner up: Eris by Project Douglas (Casey Kuhlman, Dennis McKinnon and Preston Byrne)
DAO system running on Ethereum, allows for many applications running completely decentralised without servers.
Will allow for community-ran organisations / applications with direct shareholder voting
Can replace any existing organisation with a virtual one
Has amazing possibilities for being able to replace existing institutions, including companies and governments
These guys have done a tremendous job at creating a software platform which is extendable into many many things. It allows for the creating of a decentralised ‘anything’. The implications of this are tremendous, and as such I wanted to award them a part of the bounty also. They will get $10,000 for this amazing effort. https://eris.projectdouglas.org/
UASF is basically what you would expect to see if Bitcoin were being divided intentionally
I've been involved in Bitcoin for a long time. I know the problem it is trying to solve. And I recognize the hurdles placed in the way of doing so. One of those hurdles, as we have all seen, is systematic manipulation and censorship. At some point, each of us has noticed that different people in Bitcoin seem to have had different experiences surrounding the same major events, since its creation. Each of us has witnessed the deliberate manipulation, the lies and censorship, that exacerbates this division. Why did Satoshi really quit? Is Gavin really trustworthy? Why did he quit? What about Mike Hearn? What really happened with pirateat40? What really happened with the bear whale? What happened at MtGox? Is Roger Ver trustworthy? What about Peter Vessenes and the Bitcoin Foundation? Why did they add Satoshi to their list of "founders"? Is Blockstream trustworthy? What happened to Theymos and all those Bitcoins he raised to build a new forum? Who really is Craig Wright, and why would trustworthy people believe his claims? Why would others dismiss them out of hand? Ask ten different questions. You will get a hundred different answers. People can't even seem to agree on a common interpretation of a fifty-word agreement that they all negotiated and signed. Why is that, exactly? Trading and finance and currency are ultimately just information games. Having the right information at the right time, and being able to trust it, can make you rich. Having the wrong information, and trusting it, can make you poor. And in the fiat world, at least, having no information, or taking the default position of not trusting anything, is guaranteed to make you poor, over time. Bitcoin was designed to change that. Bitcoin was designed to overcome the information coordination problem. It was intended to reverse this fundamental bias of the modern economy towards disinformation, destruction and poverty. And the way it does this, the innovation which enables it to do so in a trustless manner, is proof-of-work. Yes, Bitcoin is "decentralized," as it was designed to produce economic decentralization. But to say that there is no central authority is a blatant lie. The central authority is the genesis block, and all valid blocks after that which have the most proof of work. The central authority is the group of wonderful, intelligent, selfless people who worked tirelessly, both before Satoshi and after, to bring Bitcoin into fruition and unite the world behind it. The central authority is our shared recognition of the ordering and inclusion of transactions in the chain of transactions that goes back to the beginning. It can be distributed, divided among many miners and among many individuals controlling various pieces of Bitcoin, as seems to have been deliberately done. But it must be global. It must be shared. It must be voluntary. And it must be valid. Therefore, every attempt to alter the definition of "validity" should be evaluated with extreme skepticism. Who is making this proposal? What is their connection to Bitcoin, and to its creation? What are their other connections, and motivations? What are the methods used to promote this proposal, and to counter its detractors? Does this proposal continue to unite the Bitcoin community, or does it divide it needlessly? I have witnessed, over the past seven years, Bitcoin become progressively more and more separated from its creation. I have seen individuals come and go with little explanation. I have seen a few controversial and influential figures intentionally segregated. And I have seen Bitcoin suffer for it. I can't help but wonder whether this is not only intentional, but malicious. I, myself, have done my own small part to attempt to unite Bitcoin, to re-connect it to its creation, to determine and to share what is really going on. For this, I have been censored and maligned. I don't take it personally. But it does beg the question: Is Bitcoin being deliberately divided? I'm not talking about decentralization, whether of nodes or of mining or of development or of trading or of discussion or of the real Bitcoin economy. That's all well and good. I'm talking about fundamental, basic, irreversible... division. Permanent and intentional separation of Bitcoin, from its creation.
Observing Dictatorial And Rushed Decisions By ABC Developers, Mike Hearn Predicted Split In April 2018
Mike Hearn in an AMA on btc 7 month ago about Bitcoin Cash: "... Some things are being overlooked. If history repeated itself that would be a crying shame. Hard forking is an implementation mechanism, not a governance mechanism. Governance is a process, and often an institution, for arriving at a decision. A hard fork is just the software event that makes it real. I note with some alarm that Bitcoin Cash is planning a timed hard fork in just one month, with no attempt to measure support or whether people are ready or even agree. The content is not going to controversial in this community now, but a lot of organisations would find it hard to schedule and test a software upgrade on one month's notice. There's a risk that miners who do upgrade will be split onto a minority chain by accident even if everyone intends to upgrade, and have to roll back, making them even more conservative than they already are. Governance was one of the causes of the split and so needs the most analysis and change. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing that at the moment. Multiple competing implementations is what we tried with Bitcoin XT and it didn't work. Ultimately the internet is a lawless place, and a sufficiently committed group will always be able to wipe out any nodes they disagree with to prevent people from expressing their opinions. Formalised governance mechanisms can help avoid this by coordinating a group decision in ways that can't be so trivially attacked, and if you look at Ethereum, they have the Ethereum Foundation and other ways to do it. I think that would help a lot. Right now I don't see anything that would prevent a repeat of what happened before, especially given the underlying psychological causes of the Core/Cash divide." Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/89z483/ama_ask_mike_anything/dwul86v/?st=jozvrskv&sh=64c8404a (http://archive.is/BIsn4)
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS? A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream. We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%? A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network. Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future? A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night). I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second. Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned. Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely? A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time. When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before. Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks. A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful. I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good. I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them. Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem? A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things. We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe? A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise. My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people. The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create. “Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever. It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary? A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else. I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers. And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork? A: Lightning does not need a hard fork. It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly. I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream? A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached. A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015. The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents. I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit. Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests? A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically. He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time. Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy? A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things. Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say. A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer. The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning. Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan? A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy. Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all. A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks. And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing). I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features). I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions: Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling? A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing. Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team? A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it. Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic. The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two. I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj. Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this? A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions. The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects. Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners. A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning. Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners. Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed. A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been. I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018. Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split? A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain. Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.? A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic? A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap. We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms? A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down. I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io… And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them! I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"? A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.” As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn? A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now? Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks. A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful. I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser. In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next. As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not. Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
Hi Gavin, I have some questions: Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community? A: 1) Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects. Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic. Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out). Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently. Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else? A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project. Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin? A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible. Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be? A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have. Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times. Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future? A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong. Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you! A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture. I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen! Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin. A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood. 15. satoshi Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions? A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download. The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
I'm on board with classic
I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions: Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high. Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners. Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting? *The questioner further explained his concern. Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem. A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin). Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization? A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now. And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time. Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa? A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal. I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design. Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)? A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not. Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap? A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else. Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price? A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project. Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business. Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing. Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info? A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions. Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ? A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that. Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core? A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin? A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
Press Contacts: San Francisco, CA, Kerryn Lloyd, [email protected] San Francisco, CA – August 28, 2018 –The Bitcoin Foundation has received a commitment of $200,000 for its 2018/2019 plan – $100,000 from Brock Pierce, a venture capitalist, philanthropist, serial entrepreneur and Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation and a further $100,000 commitment […] Im Januar 2016 nannte der ehemalige Bitcoin-Entwickler Mike Hearn Bitcoin ein "gescheitertes Projekt". Peter Greenhill, Direktor für E-Business-Entwicklung auf der Isle of Man, kommentierte die umgangssprachlichen Nachrufe von Mark Twain: "Berichte über den Tod von Bitcoin wurden stark übertrieben". Rezeption . Einige Ökonomen haben positiv auf Bitcoin reagiert, während andere Skepsis ... Mike Hearn has given many speeches about Bitcoin development. One of those problems is Bitcoin’s volunteer-based infrastructure. Although for-profit companies like BitGo and Coinbase do plenty of great work with Bitcoin distribution and security, the actual protocol itself is open-source and has nobody inherently funding it. Enfin, Mike Hearn évoque un certain nombre de faits préoccupants, comme les nombreuses cyber-attaques dont fait l’objet le réseau bitcoin, des attaques de plus en plus difficiles à contrer dans un contexte où les défections deviennent nombreuses, car les partisans de la première heure ayant finir par partir (comme lui), dégoûtés par le tour qu’ont pris les évènements. Il y a ... He's promoted blacklists before, but Hearn is now a Bitcoin Foundation insider and as Chair of the Foundations Law & Policy committee he is pushing the Foundation to adopt policies approving the idea of blacklisting coins. I also find it darkly amusing that he's now decided to call the idea "redlists", perhaps he has learned a thing or two about PR in the past few months.
#Bitcoin2014 - Annual State of Bitcoin by Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist of Bitcoin Foundation
Mike Hearn: Autonomous agents, self driving cars and Bitcoin - Duration: 24:39. ... The Bitcoin Foundation Recommended for you. 1:04:07. How To Fix Forward Head Posture - 3 Easy Exercises (From a ... The effort to build Corda was lead by R3 CTO Richard Brown and the former Bitcoin developer and R3 lead architect Mike Hearn. In a wide-ranging discussion, we covered the vision of the project and ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue 109-Year-Old Veteran and His Secrets to Life Will Make You Smile Short Film Showcase - Duration: 12:39. National Geographic Recommended for you Mike Hearn, Bitcoin Core Developer NBC2014 - Duration: 29:31. ... The Bitcoin Foundation 20,099 views. 55:04. Answering your burning Etsy SEO questions PART TWO - The Friday Bean Coffee Meet ...