(13,025.81 $) Der aktuelle Bitcoin-Kurs live: BTC in USD ...

Groestlcoin 6th Anniversary Release

Introduction

Dear Groestlers, it goes without saying that 2020 has been a difficult time for millions of people worldwide. The groestlcoin team would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone our best to everyone coping with the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19. Let it bring out the best in us all and show that collectively, we can conquer anything.
The centralised banks and our national governments are facing unprecedented times with interest rates worldwide dropping to record lows in places. Rest assured that this can only strengthen the fundamentals of all decentralised cryptocurrencies and the vision that was seeded with Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper over 10 years ago. Despite everything that has been thrown at us this year, the show must go on and the team will still progress and advance to continue the momentum that we have developed over the past 6 years.
In addition to this, we'd like to remind you all that this is Groestlcoin's 6th Birthday release! In terms of price there have been some crazy highs and lows over the years (with highs of around $2.60 and lows of $0.000077!), but in terms of value– Groestlcoin just keeps getting more valuable! In these uncertain times, one thing remains clear – Groestlcoin will keep going and keep innovating regardless. On with what has been worked on and completed over the past few months.

UPDATED - Groestlcoin Core 2.18.2

This is a major release of Groestlcoin Core with many protocol level improvements and code optimizations, featuring the technical equivalent of Bitcoin v0.18.2 but with Groestlcoin-specific patches. On a general level, most of what is new is a new 'Groestlcoin-wallet' tool which is now distributed alongside Groestlcoin Core's other executables.
NOTE: The 'Account' API has been removed from this version which was typically used in some tip bots. Please ensure you check the release notes from 2.17.2 for details on replacing this functionality.

How to Upgrade?

Windows
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer.
OSX
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), run the dmg and drag Groestlcoin Core to Applications.
Ubuntu
http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=441.0

Other Linux

http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=97.0

Download

Download the Windows Installer (64 bit) here
Download the Windows Installer (32 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (32 bit) here
Download the OSX Installer here
Download the OSX binaries here
Download the Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Linux binaries (32 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (32 bit) here

Source

ALL NEW - Groestlcoin Moonshine iOS/Android Wallet

Built with React Native, Moonshine utilizes Electrum-GRS's JSON-RPC methods to interact with the Groestlcoin network.
GRS Moonshine's intended use is as a hot wallet. Meaning, your keys are only as safe as the device you install this wallet on. As with any hot wallet, please ensure that you keep only a small, responsible amount of Groestlcoin on it at any given time.

Features

Download

iOS
Android

Source

ALL NEW! – HODL GRS Android Wallet

HODL GRS connects directly to the Groestlcoin network using SPV mode and doesn't rely on servers that can be hacked or disabled.
HODL GRS utilizes AES hardware encryption, app sandboxing, and the latest security features to protect users from malware, browser security holes, and even physical theft. Private keys are stored only in the secure enclave of the user's phone, inaccessible to anyone other than the user.
Simplicity and ease-of-use is the core design principle of HODL GRS. A simple recovery phrase (which we call a Backup Recovery Key) is all that is needed to restore the user's wallet if they ever lose or replace their device. HODL GRS is deterministic, which means the user's balance and transaction history can be recovered just from the backup recovery key.

Features

Download

Main Release (Main Net)
Testnet Release

Source

ALL NEW! – GroestlcoinSeed Savior

Groestlcoin Seed Savior is a tool for recovering BIP39 seed phrases.
This tool is meant to help users with recovering a slightly incorrect Groestlcoin mnemonic phrase (AKA backup or seed). You can enter an existing BIP39 mnemonic and get derived addresses in various formats.
To find out if one of the suggested addresses is the right one, you can click on the suggested address to check the address' transaction history on a block explorer.

Features

Live Version (Not Recommended)

https://www.groestlcoin.org/recovery/

Download

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/mnemonic-recovery/archive/master.zip

Source

ALL NEW! – Vanity Search Vanity Address Generator

NOTE: NVidia GPU or any CPU only. AMD graphics cards will not work with this address generator.
VanitySearch is a command-line Segwit-capable vanity Groestlcoin address generator. Add unique flair when you tell people to send Groestlcoin. Alternatively, VanitySearch can be used to generate random addresses offline.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic addresses generated by regular groestlcoin clients, then VanitySearch is the right choice for you to create a more personalized address.
VanitySearch is a groestlcoin address prefix finder. If you want to generate safe private keys, use the -s option to enter your passphrase which will be used for generating a base key as for BIP38 standard (VanitySearch.exe -s "My PassPhrase" FXPref). You can also use VanitySearch.exe -ps "My PassPhrase" which will add a crypto secure seed to your passphrase.
VanitySearch may not compute a good grid size for your GPU, so try different values using -g option in order to get the best performances. If you want to use GPUs and CPUs together, you may have best performances by keeping one CPU core for handling GPU(s)/CPU exchanges (use -t option to set the number of CPU threads).

Features

Usage

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/VanitySearch#usage

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020

Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020 is a windows app built from the ground-up and makes it easier than ever before to create your very own bespoke bech32 address(es) when whilst not connected to the internet.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic bech32 addresses generated by regular Groestlcoin clients, then Groestlcoin EasyVanity2020 is the right choice for you to create a more personalised bech32 address. This 2020 version uses the new VanitySearch to generate not only legacy addresses (F prefix) but also Bech32 addresses (grs1 prefix).

Features

Download

Source

Remastered! – Groestlcoin WPF Desktop Wallet (v2.19.0.18)

Groestlcoin WPF is an alternative full node client with optional lightweight 'thin-client' mode based on WPF. Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is one of Microsoft's latest approaches to a GUI framework, used with the .NET framework. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for exporting blockchain.dat and including a lite wallet mode.
This wallet was previously deprecated but has been brought back to life with modern standards.

Features

Remastered Improvements

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – BIP39 Key Tool

Groestlcoin BIP39 Key Tool is a GUI interface for generating Groestlcoin public and private keys. It is a standalone tool which can be used offline.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux :
 pip3 install -r requirements.txt python3 bip39\_gui.py 

Source

ALL NEW! – Electrum Personal Server

Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server aims to make using Electrum Groestlcoin wallet more secure and more private. It makes it easy to connect your Electrum-GRS wallet to your own full node.
It is an implementation of the Electrum-grs server protocol which fulfils the specific need of using the Electrum-grs wallet backed by a full node, but without the heavyweight server backend, for a single user. It allows the user to benefit from all Groestlcoin Core's resource-saving features like pruning, blocks only and disabled txindex. All Electrum-GRS's feature-richness like hardware wallet integration, multi-signature wallets, offline signing, seed recovery phrases, coin control and so on can still be used, but connected only to the user's own full node.
Full node wallets are important in Groestlcoin because they are a big part of what makes the system be trust-less. No longer do people have to trust a financial institution like a bank or PayPal, they can run software on their own computers. If Groestlcoin is digital gold, then a full node wallet is your own personal goldsmith who checks for you that received payments are genuine.
Full node wallets are also important for privacy. Using Electrum-GRS under default configuration requires it to send (hashes of) all your Groestlcoin addresses to some server. That server can then easily spy on your transactions. Full node wallets like Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server would download the entire blockchain and scan it for the user's own addresses, and therefore don't reveal to anyone else which Groestlcoin addresses they are interested in.
Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can also broadcast transactions through Tor which improves privacy by resisting traffic analysis for broadcasted transactions which can link the IP address of the user to the transaction. If enabled this would happen transparently whenever the user simply clicks "Send" on a transaction in Electrum-grs wallet.
Note: Currently Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can only accept one connection at a time.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux / OSX (Instructions)

Source

UPDATED – Android Wallet 7.38.1 - Main Net + Test Net

The app allows you to send and receive Groestlcoin on your device using QR codes and URI links.
When using this app, please back up your wallet and email them to yourself! This will save your wallet in a password protected file. Then your coins can be retrieved even if you lose your phone.

Changes

Download

Main Net
Main Net (FDroid)
Test Net

Source

UPDATED – Groestlcoin Sentinel 3.5.06 (Android)

Groestlcoin Sentinel is a great solution for anyone who wants the convenience and utility of a hot wallet for receiving payments directly into their cold storage (or hardware wallets).
Sentinel accepts XPUB's, YPUB'S, ZPUB's and individual Groestlcoin address. Once added you will be able to view balances, view transactions, and (in the case of XPUB's, YPUB's and ZPUB's) deterministically generate addresses for that wallet.
Groestlcoin Sentinel is a fork of Groestlcoin Samourai Wallet with all spending and transaction building code removed.

Changes

Download

Source

UPDATED – P2Pool Test Net

Changes

Download

Pre-Hosted Testnet P2Pool is available via http://testp2pool.groestlcoin.org:21330/static/

Source

submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Aug 24, 2018

[14:05] <@wolfsokta> Hello Everybody, sorry we're a bit late getting started
[14:05] == block_338778 [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.214.222.226] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Here are the topics we would like to cover today • 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] == Chatturga changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Daben, could you mention what we have done to communicate the need for the 2.0.4 upgrade?
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:07] <@wolfsokta> Others here are free to chime in where they saw the message first.
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Client Quit]
[14:08] Whats up bois
[14:08] hi everyone
[14:08] hi hi
[14:08] <@wolfsokta> Discussing the 2.0.4 update and the need to upgrade.
[14:08] <@Chatturga> Sure. As most of you are aware, the community has been expressing concerns with the difficulty oscillations, and were asking that something be done to the difficulty retargeting. Many people submitted suggestions, and the devs decided to implement DGW.
[14:09] <@Tron> I wrote up a short description of why we're moving to a new difficulty adjustment. https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:09] <@Chatturga> I have made posts on discord, telegram, bitcointalk, reddit, and ravencointalk.org from testnet stages through current.
[14:10] <@Chatturga> If there are any other channels that can reach a large number of community members, I would love to have more.
[14:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Tron, that hasn't been shared to the community at large yet, but folks feel free to share it.
[14:10] When was this decision made and by whom and how?
[14:10] <@Chatturga> I have also communicated with the pool operators and exchanges about the update. Of all of the current pools, only 2 have not yet updated versions.
[14:11] <@wolfsokta> The decision was made by the developers through ongoing requests for weeks made by the community.
[14:12] <@wolfsokta> Evidence was provided by the community of the damages that could be caused to projects when the wild swings continue.
[14:12] So was there a meeting or vote? How can people get invited
[14:12] <@Tron> It was also informed by my conversations with some miners that recommended that we make the change before the coin died. They witnessed similar oscillations from which other coins never recovered.
[14:13] only two pools left to upgrade is good, what about the exchanges? Any word on how many of those have/have not upgraded?
[14:13] <@wolfsokta> We talked about here in our last meeting Bruce_. All attendees were asked if they had any questions or concerns.
[14:13] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] == roshii [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.41.251.25.100] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] sup roshii long time no see
[14:14] <@Chatturga> Bittrex, Cryptopia, and IDCM have all either updated or have announced their intent to update.
[14:14] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:15] sup russki
[14:15] what's the status here?
[14:15] I don’t think that was at all clear from the last dev meeting
[14:15] I can’t be the only person who didn’t understand it
[14:15] <@wolfsokta> Are there any suggestions on how to communicate the need to upgrade even further? I am concerned that others might also not understand.
[14:17] I’m not sold on the benefit and don’t understand the need for a hard fork — I think it’s a bad precedent to simply go rally exchanges to support a hard fork with little to no discussion
[14:17] so just to note, the exchanges not listed as being upgraded or have announced their intention to upgrade include: qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge (all with over $40k usd volume past 24 hours according to coinmarketcap)
[14:18] <@wolfsokta> I don't agree that there was little or no discussion at all.
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> Looking back at our meeting notes from two weeks ago "fork" was specifically asked about by BrianMCT.
[14:19] If individual devs have the power to simple decide to do something as drastic as a hard fork and can get exchanges and miners to do it that’s got a lot of issues with centralization
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> It had been implemented on testnet by then and discussed in the community for several weeks before that.
[14:19] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:19] howdy
[14:19] Everything I’ve seen has been related to the asset layer
[14:19] I have to agree with Bruce_, though I wasn't able to join the last meeting here. That said I support the fork
[14:20] Which devs made this decision to do a fork and how was it communicated?
[14:20] well mostly the community made the decision
[14:20] Consensus on a change is the heart of bitcoin development and I believe the devs have done a great job building that consensus
[14:20] a lot of miners were in uproar about the situation
[14:20] <@wolfsokta> All of the devs were supporting the changes. It wasn't done in isolation at all.
[14:21] This topic has been a huge discussion point within the RVN mining community for quite some time
[14:21] the community and miners have been having issues with the way diff is adjusted for quite some time now
[14:21] Sure I’m well aware of that -
[14:21] Not sold on the benefits of having difficulty crippled by rented hashpower?
[14:21] The community saw a problem. The devs got together and talked about a solution and implemented a solution
[14:21] I’m active in the community
[14:22] So well aware of the discussions on DGW etc
[14:22] Hard fork as a solution to a problem community had with rented hashpower (nicehash!!) sounds like the perfect decentralized scenario!
[14:23] hard forks are very dangerous
[14:23] mining parties in difficulty drops are too
[14:23] <@wolfsokta> Agreed, we want to keep them to an absolute minimum.
[14:23] But miners motivation it’s the main vote
[14:24] What would it take to convince you that constantly going from 4 Th/s to 500 Gh/s every week is worse for the long term health of the coin than the risk of a hard fork to fix it?
[14:24] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:24] This hardfork does include the asset layer right? if so why is it being delayed in implementation?
[14:24] <@wolfsokta> Come back Tron!
[14:24] coudl it have been implement through bip9 voting?
[14:24] also hard fork is activated by the community! that's a vote thing!
[14:24] @mrsushi to give people time to upgrade their wallet
[14:25] @under, it would be much hard to keep consensus with a bip9 change
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> We investigated that closely Under.
[14:25] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> See Tron's post for more details about that.
[14:25] <@spyder_> Hi Tron
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:25] Sorry about that. Computer went to sleep.
[14:26] I'm wrong
[14:26] 2 cents. the release deadline of october 31st puts a bit of strain on getting code shipped. (duh). but fixing daa was important to the current health of the coin, and was widely suppported by current mining majority commuity. could it have been implemented in a different manner? yes . if we didnt have deadlines
[14:27] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[14:27] sushi this fork does not include assets. it's not being delayed though, we're making great progress for an Oct 31 target
[14:28] I don’t see the urgency but my vote doesn’t matter since my hash power is still CPUs
[14:28] <@wolfsokta> We're seeing the community get behind the change as well based on the amount of people jumping back in to mine through this last high difficulty phase.
[14:28] So that will be another hardfork?
[14:28] the fork does include the asset code though set to activate on oct 30th
[14:28] yes
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Yes, it will based on the upgrade voting through the BIP9 process.
[14:29] I wanted to ask about burn rates from this group: and make a proposal.
[14:29] we're also trying hard to make it the last for awhile
[14:29] Can you clear up the above — there will be this one and another hard fork?
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we could discuss that under towards the end of the meeting.
[14:30] If this one has the asset layer is there something different set for October
[14:30] <@wolfsokta> Yes, there will be another hard fork on October 31st once the voting process is successful.
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> The code is in 2.0.4 now and assets are active on testnet
[14:31] Bruce, the assets layer is still being worked on. Assets is active on mainnet. So in Oct 31 voting will start. and if it passes, the chain will fork.
[14:31] this one does NOT include assets for mainnet Bruce -- assets are targeted for Oct 31
[14:31] not***
[14:31] not active****
[14:31] correct me if I'm wrong here, but if everyone upgrades to 2.0.4 for this fork this week, the vote will automatically pass on oct 31st correct? nothing else needs to be done
[14:31] Will if need another download or does this software download cover both forks?
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> Correct Urgo
[14:32] thats how the testnet got activated and this one shows "asset activation status: waiting until 10/30/2018 20:00 (ET)"
[14:32] Will require another upgrade before Oct 31
[14:32] thank you for the clarification wolfsokta
[14:32] <@wolfsokta> It covers both forks, but we might have additional bug fixes in later releases.
[14:32] So users DL one version now and another one around October 30 which activates after that basically?
[14:33] I understand that, but I just wanted to make it clear that if people upgrade to this version for this fork and then don't do anything, they are also voting for the fork on oct 31st
[14:33] Oh okay — one DL?
[14:33] Bruce, Yes.
[14:33] Ty
[14:33] well there is the issue that there maybe some further consensus bugs dealing with the pruneability of asset transactions that needs to be corrected between 2.0.4 and mainnet. so i would imagine that there will be further revisions required to upgrade before now and october 31
[14:33] @under that is correct.
[14:34] I would highly recommend bumping the semver up to 3.0.0 for the final pre 31st release so that the public know to definitely upgrade
[14:34] @under +1
[14:35] out of curiosity, have there been many bugs found with the assets from the version released in july for testnet (2.0.3) until this version? or is it solely a change to DGW?
[14:35] <@wolfsokta> That's not a bad idea under.
[14:35] <@spyder_> @under good idea
[14:35] @urgo. Bugs are being found and fixed daily.
[14:35] Any time the protocol needs to change, there would need to be a hard fork (aka upgrade). It is our hope that we can activate feature forks through the BIP process (as we are doing for assets). Mining pools and exchanges will need to be on the newest software at the point of asset activation - should the mining hash power vote for assets.
[14:35] blondfrogs: gotcha
[14:35] There have been bugs found (and fixed). Testing continues. We appreciate all the bug reports you can give us.
[14:36] <@wolfsokta> Yes! Thank you all for your help in the community.
[14:37] (pull requests with fixes and test coverage would be even better!)
[14:37] asset creation collision is another major issue. current unfair advantage or nodes that fore connect to mining pools will have network topologies that guarantee acceptance. I had discussed the possibility of fee based asset creation selection and i feel that would be a more equal playing ground for all users
[14:38] *of nodes that force
[14:38] <@wolfsokta> What cfox said, we will always welcome development help.
[14:38] So just to make sure everyone know. When assets is ready to go live on oct 31st. Everyone that wants to be on the assets chain without any problems will have to download the new binary.
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> The latest binary.
[14:39] under: already in the works
[14:39] excellent to hear
[14:39] == UserJonPizza [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.24.218.60.237] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we've spent a bunch of time on that topic and I think it was needed. Does anybody have any other suggestions on how to get the word out even more?
[14:40] maybe preface all 2.0.X releases as pre-releases... minimize the number of releases between now and 3.0 etc
[14:41] <@wolfsokta> Bruce_ let's discuss further offline.
[14:41] wolfsokta: which are the remaining two pools that need to be upgraded? I've identified qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge as high volume exchanges that haven't said they were going to do it yet
[14:41] so people can help reach out to them
[14:41] f2pool is notoriously hard to contact
[14:41] are they on board?
[14:42] <@wolfsokta> We could use help reaching out to QBTC and Graviex
[14:42] I can try to contact CB if you want?
[14:42] <@Chatturga> The remaining pools are Ravenminer and PickAxePro.
[14:42] <@Chatturga> I have spoken with their operators, the update just hasnt been applied yet.
[14:42] ravenminer is one of the largest ones too. If they don't upgrade that will be a problem
[14:42] okay good news
[14:42] (PickAxePro sounds like a Ruby book)
[14:43] I strongly feel like getting the word out on ravencoin.org would be beneficial
[14:44] that site is sorely in need of active contribution
[14:44] Anyone can volunteer to contribute
[14:44] <@wolfsokta> Okay, cfox can you talk about the status of unique assets?
[14:44] sure
[14:45] <@wolfsokta> I'll add website to the end of our topics.
[14:45] code is in review and will be on the development branch shortly
[14:45] would it make sense to have a page on the wiki (or somewhere else) that lists the wallet versions run by pools & exchanges?
[14:45] will be in next release
[14:45] furthermore, many sites have friendly link to the standard installers for each platform, if the site linked to the primary installers for each platform to reduce github newb confusion that would be good as well
[14:46] likely to a testnetv5 although that isn't settled
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Thanks cfox.
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Are there any questions about unique assets, and how they work?
[14:47] after the # are there any charachters you cant use?
[14:47] will unique assets be constrained by the asset alphanumeric set?
[14:47] ^
[14:47] <@Chatturga> @Urgo there is a page that tracks and shows if they have updated, but it currently doesnt show the actual version that they are on.
[14:47] a-z A-Z 0-9
[14:47] <@Chatturga> https://raven.wiki/wiki/Exchange_notifications#Pools
[14:47] There are a few. Mostly ones that mess with command-line
[14:47] you'll be able to use rpc to do "issueunique MATRIX ['Neo','Tank','Tank Brother']" and it will create three assets for you (MATRIX#Neo, etc.)
[14:47] @cfox - No space
[14:48] @under the unique tags have an expanded set of characters allowed
[14:48] Chatturga: thank you
[14:48] @UJP yes there are some you can't use -- I'll try to post gimmie a sec..
[14:49] Ok. Thank you much!
[14:49] 36^36 assets possible and 62^62 uniques available per asset?
[14:49] <@spyder_> std::regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$");
[14:50] regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$")
[14:50] oh thanks Mark
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> Okay, next up. I want to thank everybody for helping test the iOS wallet release.
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> We are working with Apple to get the final approval to post it to the App Store
[14:51] @under max asset length is 30, including unique tag
[14:51] Does the RVN wallet have any other cryptos or just RVN?
[14:52] == BruceFenton [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:52] will the android and ios source be migrated to the ravenproject github?
[14:52] I've been adding beta test users. I've added about 80 new users in the last few days.
[14:52] <@wolfsokta> Just RVN, and we want to focus on adding the asset support to the wallet.
[14:53] == Bruce_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> Yes, the code will also be freely available on GitHub for both iOS and Android. Thank you Roshii!
[14:53] Would you consider the iOS wallet to be a more secure place for one's holdings than say, a Mac connected to the internet?
[14:53] will there be a chance of a more user freindly wallet with better graphics like the iOS on PC?
[14:53] the android wallet is getting updated for DGW, correct?
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> That has come up in our discussion Pizza.
[14:54] QT framework is pretty well baked in and is cross platform. if we get some qt gurus possibly
[14:54] Phones are pretty good because the wallet we forked uses the TPM from modern phones.
[14:54] Most important is to write down and safely store your 12 word seed.
[14:54] TPM?
[14:54] <@wolfsokta> A user friendly wallet is one of our main goals.
[14:55] TPM == Trusted Platform Module
[14:55] Ahhh thanks
[14:55] just please no electron apps. they are full of security holes
[14:55] <@spyder_> It is whats makes your stuffs secure
[14:55] not fit for crypto
[14:55] under: depends on who makes it
[14:55] The interface screenshots I've seen look like Bread/Loaf wallet ... I assume that's what was forked from
[14:55] ;)
[14:56] <@wolfsokta> @roshii did you see the question about the Android wallet and DGW?
[14:56] Yes, it was a fork of breadwallet. We like their security.
[14:56] chromium 58 is the last bundled electron engine and has every vuln documented online by google. so unless you patch every vuln.... methinks not
[14:56] Agreed, great choice
[14:57] <@wolfsokta> @Under, what was your proposal?
[14:58] All asset creation Transactions have a mandatory OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY of 1 year(or some agreed upon time interval), and the 500 RVN goes to a multisig devfund, run by a custodial group. We get: 1) an artificial temporary burn, 2) sustainable community and core development funding for the long term, after OSTK/Medici 3) and the reintroduction of RVN supply at a fixed schedule, enabling the removal of the 42k max cap of total As
[14:58] *im wrong on the 42k figure
[14:58] <@wolfsokta> Interesting...
[14:59] <@wolfsokta> Love to hear others thoughts.
[14:59] Update: I posted a message on the CryptoBridge discord and one of their support members @stepollo#6276 said he believes the coin team is already aware of the fork but he would forward the message about the fork over to them right now anyway
[14:59] Ifs 42 million assets
[14:59] yep.
[15:00] I have a different Idea. If the 500 RVN goes to a dev fund its more centralized. The 500 RVN should go back into the unmined coins so miners can stay for longer.
[15:01] *without a hardfork
[15:01] <@wolfsokta> lol
[15:01] that breaks halving schedule, since utxos cant return to an unmined state.
[15:01] @UJP back into coinbase is interesting. would have to think about how that effects distribution schedule, etc.
[15:01] only way to do that would be to dynamicaly grow max supply
[15:02] and i am concerned already about the max safe integer on various platforms at 21 billion
[15:02] js chokes on ravencoin already
[15:02] <@wolfsokta> Other thoughts on Under's proposal? JS isn't a real language. ;)
[15:02] Well Bitcoin has more than 21 bn Sats
[15:02] Is there somebody who wants to volunteer to fix js.
[15:02] hahaha
[15:03] I honestly would hate for the coins to go to a dev fund. It doesn't seem like Ravencoin to me.
[15:03] Yep, but we're 21 billion x 100,000,000 -- Fits fine in a 64-bit integer, but problematic for some languages.
[15:03] <@wolfsokta> Thanks UJP
[15:04] <@wolfsokta> We're past time but I would like to continue if you folks are up for it.
[15:04] Yeah no coins can go anywhere centrality contorted like a dev fund cause that would mean someone has to run it and the code can’t decide that so it’s destined to break
[15:05] currently and long term with out the financial backing of development then improvements and features will be difficult. we are certainly thankful for our current development model. but if a skunkworks project hits a particular baseline of profitability any reasonable company would terminate it
[15:05] Yes let’s contibue for sure
[15:05] the alternative to a dev fund in my mind would be timelocking those funds back to the issuers change address
[15:06] But we can’t have dev built in to the code — it has to be open source like Bitcoin and monero and Litecoin - it’s got drawbacks but way more advantages- it’s the best model
[15:06] Dev funding
[15:06] i highly reccommend not reducing the utility of raven by removing permanently the supply
[15:07] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:07] timelocking those funds accompllishes the same sacrifice
[15:07] @under timelocking is interesting too
[15:07] How exactly does timelocking work?
[15:07] <@wolfsokta> ^
[15:07] I mean you could change the price of assets with the Block reward halfing.
[15:07] == Roshiix [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.105.67.2.212] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:08] funds cant be spent from an address until a certain time passes
[15:08] but in a what magical fairy land do people continue to work for free forever. funding development is a real issue... as much as some might philosphically disagree. its a reality
[15:08] You’d still need a centralized party to decide how to distribute the funds
[15:08] even unofficially blockstream supports bitcoin devs
[15:08] on chain is more transparent imho
[15:09] == Tron_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:09] @UJP yes there are unlimited strategies. one factor that I think is v important is giving application developers a way to easily budget for projects which leads to flat fees
[15:09] If the project is a success like many of believe it will be, I believe plenty of people will gladly done to a dev fund. I don't think the 500 should be burned.
[15:09] *donate
[15:09] centralized conservatorship, directed by community voting process
[15:10] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[15:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Under, that's an interesting idea that we should continue to discuss in the community. You also mentioned the existing website.
[15:10] It would need to be something where everyone with a QT has a vote
[15:10] think his computer went to sleep again :-/
[15:10] I agree UJP
[15:10] with the website
[15:10] No that’s ico jargon — any development fund tied to code would have to be centralized and would therefor fail
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] dashes model for funding seems to be pretty decentralized
[15:11] community voting etc
[15:11] Once you have a dev fund tied to code then who gets to run it? Who mediates disputes?
[15:11] oh well another discussion
[15:11] Dash has a CEO
[15:12] <@wolfsokta> Yeah, let's keep discussing in the community spaces.
[15:12] Dash does have a good model. It's in my top ten.
[15:12] having the burn go to a dev fund is absolute garbage
[15:12] These dev chats should be more target than broad general discussions — changing the entire nature of the coin and it’s economics is best discussed in the RIPs or other means
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> Yup, let's move on.
[15:13] just becuase existing implementation are garbage doesnt mean that all possible future governance options are garbage
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> To discussing the website scenario mentioned by under.
[15:13] the website needs work. would be best if it could be migrated to github as well.
[15:13] What about this: Anyone can issue a vote once the voting feature has been added, for a cost. The vote would be what the coins could be used for.
[15:14] features for the site that need work are more user friendly links to binaries
[15:14] <@wolfsokta> We investigated how bitcoin has their website in Github to make it easy for contributors to jump in.
[15:14] that means active maintenance of the site instead of its current static nature
[15:15] <@wolfsokta> I really like how it's static html, which makes it super simple to host/make changes.
[15:15] the static nature isn’t due to interface it’s due to no contributors
[15:15] no contribution mechanism has been offered
[15:15] github hosted would allow that
[15:16] We used to run the Bitcoin website from the foundation & the GitHub integration seemed to cause some issues
[15:16] its doesnt necessarily have to be hosted by github but the page source should be on github and contributions could easily be managed and tracked
[15:17] for example when a new release is dropped, the ability for the downlaods section to have platform specific easy links to the general installers is far better for general adoption than pointing users to github releases
[15:18] <@wolfsokta> How do people currently contribute to the existing website?
[15:18] they dont?
[15:18] We did that and it was a complete pain to host and keep working — if someone wants to volunteer to do that work hey can surely make the website better and continually updated — but they could do that in Wordpress also
[15:19] I’d say keep an eye out for volunteers and maybe we can get a group together who can improve the site
[15:19] == digitalvap0r-xmr [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.67.255.25.134] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:19] And they can decide best method
[15:20] I host the source for the explorer on github and anyone can spin it up instantly on a basic aws node. changes can be made to interface etc, and allow for multilingual translations which have been offered by some community members
[15:20] there are models that work. just saying it should be looked at
[15:20] i gotta run thank you all for your contributions
[15:20] <@wolfsokta> I feel we should explore the source for the website being hosted in GitHub and discuss in our next dev meeting.
[15:21] <@Chatturga> Thanks Under!
[15:21] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Thanks, we also need to drop soon.
[15:21] There is no official site so why care. Someone will do better than the next if RVN is worth it anyway. That's already the case.
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Let's do 10 mins of open Q&A
[15:22] <@wolfsokta> Go...
[15:23] <@Chatturga> Beuller?
[15:24] No questions ... just a comment that the devs and community are great and I'm happy to be a part of it
[15:24] I think everyone moved to discord. I'll throw this out there. How confident is the dev team that things will be ready for oct 31st?
[15:24] <@wolfsokta> Alright! Thanks everybody for joining us today. Let's plan to get back together as a dev group in a couple of weeks.
[15:25] thanks block!
[15:25] <@wolfsokta> Urgo, very confident
[15:25] Please exclude trolls from discord who havent read the whitepaper
[15:25] great :)
[15:25] "things" will be ready..
[15:25] Next time on discord right?
[15:25] woah why discord?
[15:25] some of the suggestions here are horrid
[15:25] this is better less point
[15:25] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:25] Assets are working well on testnet. Plan is to get as much as we can safely test by Sept 30 -- this includes dev contributions. Oct will be heavy testing and making sure it is safe.
[15:26] people
[15:26] <@wolfsokta> Planning on same time, same IRC channel.
[15:26] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:26] @xmr any in particular?
[15:27] (or is "here" discord?)
[15:27] Cheers - Tron
[15:27] "Cheers - Tron" - Tron
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

How would you pass on Bitcoin to relatives on unforeseen events

Let's discuss something different other than the price rise :) I created a document for my wife in case something happens to me. It's a USB that has an encrypted digital copy of the paper wallet and instructions on how to transfer the Bitcoins from my paper wallet into a mobile wallet then onto an exchange. The private key is BIP-38 encrypted and my wife knows the password by heart. So this is not the issue.
My main issue is what would happen if something happens to my whole family (knock on wood) and want to pass on the bitcoins to our other relatives.
If all goes well with Bitcoin, 5-10 years from any it will be a pretty substantial amount - at the very least maybe enough to buy 1 or 2 cars and I don't want this to just be one of those lost bitcoins due to death.
Basically the passwords are memorized by me, my wife and soon-to-be my child also. My wife and I have a will for our assets (properties, banks accounts) - this should not be a problem as everything would be between the lawyer and the bank but for Bitcoins how will I pass on the password to the private keys.
I initially thought of leaving the private keys and password with my lawyer but at the same time I'm not comfortable. Leaving them in a USB drive or on a Will would mean having to physically print-out the password as I can't really encrypt anything since passing on the passwords is my main issue in the first place. I can imagine scenarios wherein the lawyer may out of curiosity take a look at it or somehow it getting lost and so on.
I've thought of splitting the passwords say into 2 and distributing to me and my wives relatives but keep the private key with my lawyer. Do you guys think this will work ?
What about you, what plans do you have for passing on the bitcoins due to unforeseen events ?
submitted by tapunan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Potential Bitcoin Price Manipulation / Mitigation Options

Recently I've been thinking about how most times when the price of bitcoin starts to rally exchanges (Coinbase, etc) magically go offline. While I could initially accept these issues as happenstance, after watching the same thing repeatedly occuring year after year I'm convinced there's something deeper at play here and that there's collusion to stunt bitcoins organic growth. Especially when considering that now whales can buy futures contracts betting on the price rising before purchasing large quantities of bitcoin for themselves and then buying futures betting on it going down before selling I realized that things are going to be getting pretty hairy for the midterm here in bitcoin land.
All this being said at the end of the day supply and demand will always determine value. When considering that there are less than 17,000,000 bitcoin in existence, and a lot of them are lost or held by true hodlers, eventually the masses will scape up the BTC that the big players are manipulating the market with by selling back and forth with algorithmithic trading bots and with BTC bought at auction. I also believe that the alt coins are being driven up by the competition (banks) for two reasons.
1 to make Main Street believe they can get better returns in alt coins.
2 to scoop up BTC when the non hodlers sell out.
Here's a few things that I believe the people can do in the interim until decentralized, open source exchanges are scaled up:
Just my two cents.
submitted by BitcoinCanSaveUsAll to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BIP99½ - An Optimized Procedure to Increase the Block Size Limit

BIP: 99½
Title: An Optimized Procedure to Increase the Block Size Limit
Author: Jorge Stolfi jstolfi
Status: Crufty Draft
Created: 2015-08-30
EDIT: Changed the critical block number from 385000 to 390000 (~2016-01-02).
EDIT2: Slight wording changes ("hopefully" "assuming" as per tsontar).
EDIT3: Changed again critical block number to 395000 (~2016-02-06). Note that the traffic has increased faster than expected, so all predictions would have to be updated.
ABSTRACT
This BIP proposes setting the maximum block size to 8 MB starting with block number 395000.
MOTIVATION
This proposal aims to postpone by a few years the imminent congestion of the Bitcoin network, which is expected to occur in 2016 if traffic continues to increase at the present rate. It also aims to reduce the risk of a crippling "spam attack", that could delay a large fraction of the legitimate traffic for hours or days at a relatively modest cost for the attacker.
Congestion
The current average traffic T is ~120'000 transactions issued by all clients, per day (~1.38 tx/s, ~0.45 MB/block, ~830 tx/block assuming ~530 bytes/tx).
The maximum network capacity C with 1 MB blocks, revealed by the recent "stress tests", is ~200'000 tx/day (~2.32 tx/s, ~0.75 MB/block, ~1390 tx/block). Presumably, the main reason why it is less than 1 MB/block is because certain shortcuts taken by miners often force them to mine empty blocks. Note that the traffic now is 60% of the effective capacity.
Since the traffic rate has weekly, daily, and random fluctuations by several tens of percent, recurrent "traffic jams" (when T is higher than C for several tens of minutes) will start to occur when the average daily traffic is still well below the capacity -- say 80% (160'000 tx/day) or even less. For transactions issued during a traffic jam, the average wait time for first confirmation, which is normally 10-15 minutes, will jump to hours or even days. Fee adjustments may change the order in which individual transactions are confirmed, but the average delay will not be reduced by a single second.
Over the past 12 months, the traffic has approximately doubled, from ~60'000 tx/day. The growth seems to be linear, at the rate of 5000 tx/day per month. If the growth continues to be linear, it should reach 160'000 tx/day in ~8 months (before May 2016). If the growth is assumed to be exponential, it should reach that level in ~5 months, in February 2016.
If the maximum block size were lifted to 8 MB, assuming that empty and partial blocks would continue to be mined in about the same proportion as today, the effective capacity of the network should rise in proportion, to ~6 MB/block (1'600'000 tx/day, 5.90 tx/s). Based on last year's growth, the 80% capacity level (1'280'000 tx/day) will be reached in ~19 years assuming linear growth, and ~3.4 years assuming exponential growth.
Spam attacks
An effective spam attack would have to generate enough spam transactions, with suitable fees, to reduce the effective capacity of the network to a fraction of the legitimate traffic. Then the fraction of the traffic that cannot be serviced will pile up in the queues, forming a growing backlog until the spam attack ends; and the backlog will then clear at the rate limited by the free capacity C - T.
With the current capacity C (200'000 tx/day) and traffic T (120'000 tx/day) a spam attack that blocks half the legitimate traffic would require a spam rate S of at least C - T/2 = 140'000 tx/day (1.62 tx/s, 0.52 MB/block). The fee F per kB offered by those transactions would have to be larger than all but the top ~420 transactions in the queue. If that fee were to be 1 USD/tx, the attack may cost as little as 140'000 USD/day. The backlog of legitimate transactions would grow at the rate of T/2 = ~2500 tx/hour, and, when the attack stops, will be cleared at the maximum rate C - T = ~3300 tx/hour.
With 8 MB block limit, assuming that the effective capacity C will be 1.6 M tx/day and traffic T at 60% of the capacity (like today; expected to be the case 3 years from now), a spam attack that blocks half the traffic would require C - T/2 = 1.12 M tx/day of spam (8 times what an attack would require today). If the required fee F were to be 1 USD/tx, the attack would cost 1.12 million USD per day (ditto).
DEPLOYMENT
The maximum block size would be programmed to be 1 MB until block number 394999, and 8 MB starting with block 395000; which, at 144 blocks/day, is expected to be mined around 2016-02-06.
On the test network, the increase will start with block 390000, which is expected to be mined around 2016-01-02.
In the interest of a quick and uneventful passage through that block number, major miners should publicly state their approval or rejection of it as soon as possible.
If and when the plan is approved by miners comprising a majority of the hashpower, all miners and clients should be alerted and urged to upgrade or modify their software so that it accepts blocks up to 8 MB after the stated block number.
If and when the plan is rejected by miners comprising a majority of the hashpower, all miners and clients shoudl be alerted and warned that this BIP will not be implemented.
RATIONALE
The proposal should have a good chance to be approved and implemented, since the five largest Chinese miners (who have more than 50% of the total hash rate) have already stated in writing that they would agree to an increase of the limit to 8 MB by the end of the year, even theough they did not approve futher increases (in particular, the doublings specified by BIP101). Several major services and other miners have expressed approval for such an increase in the net.
OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL
There have been claims that increasing the block size beyond 1 MB would have negative consequences for the health of the network. However, no serious effects were demonstrated, by argument or experimentally. There are worrisome trends in sme parameters, such as the number of full nodes and and the centralization of mining; but those trends obviously are not related to the block size limit, and there is no reason to expect that they would be halted or reversed by imposing a 1 MB cap on the block size starting next year.
It should be noted that the increase is only on the block size limit; the actual block sizes will continue to be determined by the traffic. Even with optimistic forecasts, the average block size should not exceed the 1 MB limit before the end of 2016. If any harmful effects of larger blocks are demonstrated until then, the limt can be reduced again by decision of a majority of the miners.
It has been claimed that netowrk congestion would be beneficial since it would create a "fee market" whereby clients would compete for space in the blocks by paying higer transaction fees. It has been claimed that those fees would compensate for the drop in miners revenue that will follow the next reward halving in 2016. It has also been claimed that the higher fees will inhibit spam and other undesirable uses of the blockchain. However, the "fee market" would be a fundamental totally untested change in the client view of the system. It proposes a novel pricing mecanism that is not used by any existing commercial service, physical or internet-based. There is no evidence that the "fee market" would work as claimed, or that it would achieve any of its expected results. (Rather, there are arguments that it would not.) Congestion would defintely put a cap on usage of the protocol, reduce its value as a payment system, and drive away much legitimate traffic. Congestion, and the unpredictable delays that result from it, are also unlikely to make bitcoin attractive to high-value non-payment uses, such as settlements of other networks or notarization of asset trades. And, mainly, there is no reason to expect that the fee market will generate enough fees to cover the 500'000 USD/day that the miners will lose with the next halving.
COMPATIBILITY
If this change to the Bitcoin protocol gets implemented by a majority of the miners, all players will have to replace or modify their software so that it accepts blocks up to 8 MB after block 395000.
Miners who fail to do so may soon find themselves mining a minority branch of the blockchain, that grows at a much slower rate, will probably be congested from the start, and will probably die soon. That branch will probably be ignored by all major services, therefore any rewards that they earn on that branch will probably be worthless and soon unspendable.
Clients who fail to upgrade or fix their software will not "see" the majority-mined chain once someone creates a block with more than 1 MB. Then, those clients will either be unable to move their coins until they fix their software, or may see only the minority branch above. Transactions that they issue before the fix may get confirmed on the main branch, but may appear to remain unconfirmed on the minority chain. Useof tools like replace-by-fee or child-pays-for-parent while in that state may give confusing results.
DISCLAIMER
The author has never owned or used bitcoin, and has a rather negative view of it. In fact, he is a regular contributor to /buttcoin. While he sees bitcoin as a significant advance toward its stated goal ("a peer-to-peer payment system that does not depend on trusted third parties"), and finds bitcoin interesting as a computer science experiment, he is quite skeptical about its chances of widespread adoption. He also deplores the transformation of bitcoin into a negative-sum pyramid investment schema, which not only has spread much misery and distress allover the world, but has also spoiled the experiment by turning mining into an industrial activity controlled by half a dozen large companies. He hopes that the pyramid will collapse as soon as possible, and that the price will drop to the level predicted by the money velocity equation, so that the aberrant mining industry will disappear. (However, he does not think that this BIP will help to achieve this goal; quite the opposite, unfortunately.)
submitted by jstolfi to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

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

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

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

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

Top Commenters

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

Top Submissions

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

Top Comments

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

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2016-11-05 to 2016-12-04 23:06 PDT

Period: 29.76 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 26468
Rate (per day) 33.61 875.03
Unique Redditors 395 1784
Combined Score 46892 99911

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 2360 points, 29 submissions: ydtm
    1. u/jessquit to u/nullc "You're so fucking shameless, devoting your career to crippling one of the most disruptive inventions since the Internet to please your investment team. Watching you go down in flames will be one of the great moments in computer science. Your legacy will be a monument of shame" (214 points, 40 comments)
    2. Suggestion for new terminology. Instead of saying "small blocks" vs "big blocks", we could say: "centrally planned blocksize" vs "market-based blocksize". This will make it clear that some solutions are based on markets and economics, and other solutions are based on central planning. (195 points, 64 comments)
    3. Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both. (180 points, 35 comments)
    4. Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM. (153 points, 42 comments)
    5. Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them? (149 points, 66 comments)
    6. "Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt (124 points, 80 comments)
    7. Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream. (119 points, 182 comments)
    8. u/Luke-Jr: "The best available here is currently 5Mb down + 512k up DSL." // u/TruthReasonOrLies: "You seem to want to hold back the network development and growth to support those who are the least likely to run full nodes or mining." (114 points, 45 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime (90 points, 41 comments)
    10. Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life. (88 points, 26 comments)
  2. 2261 points, 29 submissions: blockologist
    1. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted (371 points, 69 comments)
    2. Gavin Andersen: Eitheor : ignore! (205 points, 41 comments)
    3. Coinbase - Protecting Customer Privacy: "we will oppose the government’s petition in court" (201 points, 28 comments)
    4. LOL u/peoplma predicted the r\Bitcoin front page perfectly nearly a year ago (178 points, 22 comments)
    5. David Jerry on Twitter: Want real evidence of echo chamber censorship on Bitcoin? @gavinandresen posted identical opposite tweets btc has both, bitcoin only 1 (174 points, 45 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Scaling Solution Segwit a “Bait and Switch”, says Roger Ver (120 points, 110 comments)
    7. Holy cow! ViaBTC raised over 90 btc in less than 24hrs for their Bitcoin Unlimited cloud mining program (104 points, 40 comments)
    8. "You don't have to wear a tin-foil hat to see that core has been pushing for some things which change the fundamental economic policies of bitcoin; changes which a substantial portion of the community is against." - u/jratcliff63367 (103 points, 82 comments)
    9. Brian Hoffman on Twitter: The fact that the Bitcoin community argues so vehemently that there is no possible alternative to the Core path shows their shortsightedness (88 points, 6 comments)
    10. Andrew Lee (Purse.io CEO) on Twitter: Multiple compatible implementations will Make Bitcoin Great Again (83 points, 16 comments)
  3. 2176 points, 12 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (625 points, 125 comments)
    2. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China (398 points, 101 comments)
    3. BU lead developer Andrew Stone: A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core (232 points, 144 comments)
    4. "The Community Has Spoken" (166 points, 65 comments)
    5. BashCo explains that if you want to discuss non-Core software on /Bitcoin, you must submit a BIP, get a BIP number, wait for peer review, modify BIP, more peer review, start serious coding, start testing, more peer review... then you may discuss it once it is "deemed safe." (163 points, 133 comments)
    6. "I'm not aware of any problem." -Greg Maxwell (158 points, 64 comments)
    7. Yet another example of censorship in /bitcoin. It is no longer possible to believe that the discussion in that subreddit is in any way honest or representative of community opinion. (123 points, 56 comments)
    8. "Segwit Blockers" is a pejorative term which automatically shifts debate to imply that one side is correct and the other is blocking progress. (120 points, 140 comments)
    9. Another post censored from /bitcoin. I'd like to know which rules were broken or what made my comment unacceptable. (71 points, 26 comments)
    10. spez: "We are taking a more aggressive stance against toxic users and poorly behaving communities." -- I wonder if this will apply to Theymos and /bitcoin? (57 points, 20 comments)
  4. 1861 points, 34 submissions: Egon_1
    1. It would be incredibly unfortunate if organic growth in Bitcoin gets dismissed as spam attacks because of suspicion about people's agendas. (146 points, 33 comments)
    2. Is it just me or is anyone else noticing that some of the Core developers are saying 'Bitcoin's creator' instead of saying Satoshi? (139 points, 67 comments)
    3. "It's not really "segwit blockers", it's more "segwit ignorers". The difference is one of not seeing Core as some Reference Code." (135 points, 32 comments)
    4. "Upcoming AMA with Bitcoin Unlimited devs in Chinese Community 8BTC, Nov 19 at 8-10AM Beijing Time" (127 points, 9 comments)
    5. So discussing block size increase is too controversial for /bitcoin but suggesting algorithm change is not? • /Bitcoin (125 points, 76 comments)
    6. "The Bitcoin Unlimited implementation excludes RBF as BU supports zero-confirmation use-cases inherent to peer-to-peer cash." (119 points, 101 comments)
    7. ... Segwit as a SF tries to make non-segwit txs more expensive relative to segwit txs to 'discourage' their use (100 points, 86 comments)
    8. Sergio."Also @Blockstream hid the fact they had applied for the patent. That's misleading (deceptive?). DPL was necessary to protect reputation(1/2)" (93 points, 42 comments)
    9. "Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted." (88 points, 43 comments)
    10. If you're working on BTC remittances or micropayments under the current regime of increasing fees, you're going to have a bad time. (88 points, 28 comments)
  5. 1791 points, 25 submissions: realistbtc
    1. the systematic censorship policy of r\bitcoin is one of the clearest proof of the technical inferiority of blockstream core prescribed solutions : if they were just better , there would be no need for such policy . (219 points, 74 comments)
    2. Mycelium.com on Twitter - ' We say one thing, we lose half our customers. We say another thing, we lose the other half. Thanks bitcoin censorship that isn't a problem! ' (202 points, 134 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on twitter : " Any studies on company success versus amount of posts from C-level execs on Reddit or Twitter?" - " My intuition is 'too much' is bad-- sign of distracted leadership, especially for CTO " (186 points, 70 comments)
    4. just so you know , now nullc is calling jtoomim a scammer : character assassination is a standard operational mode of the guys from blockstream . (129 points, 54 comments)
    5. luke-jr acknowledge that block latency isn't a problem anymore : " block latency has been a big issue in the past as well, but presumably compact/xthin blocks has solved it " - we have to thanks the BU team for that , that in turn pressed blockstream core to finally do something too (116 points, 32 comments)
    6. A glimpse into the mind of greg maxwell : " .... since you're never going to think highly of me again I can continue to whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking mass of people. " (wikipedia history , jan 2006 ) (83 points, 67 comments)
    7. after days , segwit signaling is oscillating between 15-25% . that's a far cry from what blockstream core was expecting . if they were ready to label a 10% resistance ' blockers' , now they will have to come to terms with the fact that thir proposal is simply not good enough . (79 points, 33 comments)
    8. slush on Twitter : ' Just ask BU devs to stop blocking Segwit.' - please stop mining at slush and buying trezors - slush has fallen to the blockstream cartel dark side (78 points, 256 comments)
    9. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " BTCC management team killed its no.1 position by raising fees while everyone wanted to trade in 2013Q4. Similar stupid mindset, right? " (78 points, 9 comments)
    10. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " My partner doesn't have pw of my Twitter to del twits, so Samson Joker pls focus on trolling and destroying BTCC, and not pm him any more. " (72 points, 18 comments)
  6. 1375 points, 17 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. PSA: Even CEOs of major Bitcoin companies are unaware of the suppression of discussion by Theymos and supported by Core supporters. (209 points, 97 comments)
    2. When /bitcoin started the censorship, they prevented honest discussion, split the community, and dramatically slowed down Bitcoin's progress (167 points, 125 comments)
    3. The Bitcoin.com Pool now has over 40 Peta hashes, and 2% of the global hash rate. Some users are reporting being paid as much as 8.5% more bitcoin than other pools. (132 points, 30 comments)
    4. The Bitcoin.com pool has mined over 100 blocks, and nearly 1,500 BTC so far. Looking to come out of closed beta soon. (132 points, 68 comments)
    5. /Bitcoin user caught misrepresenting and lying to attack on chain scaling supporters again (115 points, 97 comments)
    6. As Bitcoin user & enthusiast, I'd be grateful to Core, @Blockstream, and all miners if they would just stick to Satoshi's original plan. Pls RT (92 points, 126 comments)
    7. An interview with Bitcoin Unlimited Developer Andrew Stone (86 points, 24 comments)
    8. Coming very soon: More Cash for your Hash (79 points, 26 comments)
    9. The free On Chain Scaling conference starts today at 17:00 GMT! (78 points, 74 comments)
    10. An example of how a Core supporter intentionally misrepresents the truth to support his position. (71 points, 95 comments)
  7. 1239 points, 46 submissions: chinawat
    1. Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers. • x-post from /Bitcoin (151 points, 133 comments)
    2. "It is too early to talk about the tx fee market before Bitcoin is accepted across the world." - ViaBTC on Twitter (124 points, 13 comments)
    3. /HailCorporate gets wind of /Bitcoin censorship, theymos attempts to justify and downplay his behavior (92 points, 10 comments)
    4. Here we go again. My mempool is just exceed 33k. Prepare for transaction delay posts. (69 points, 48 comments)
    5. jstolfi is at it with the SEC again (48 points, 125 comments)
    6. New York is Gradually Losing its Shot at Becoming a Global Bitcoin Hub (45 points, 8 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin SegWit narrative shifting -- regulars now claiming signaling and activation was always expected to be slow (43 points, 35 comments)
    8. "There's Chaos Everywhere" - Indians Angry As ATMs Run Dry After Cash Ban (39 points, 11 comments)
    9. ViaBTC's Transaction Accelerator Test Results • x-post from /Bitcoin (39 points, 12 comments)
    10. Wikileaks latest insurance files don't match hashes (x-post from /crypto) (38 points, 1 comment)
  8. 1115 points, 12 submissions: BiggerBlocksPlease
    1. Another successful hard fork by Ethereum occurred today. Protocol upgrades are possible. Don't listen to lies from entrenched interests that say otherwise. (202 points, 78 comments)
    2. I think if it comes down to it, Core would rather remain in control, even if it means introducing a small blocksize increase, as opposed to losing control entirely. We should not lose sight of our larger goals no matter what carrots they throw our way: We need a new, un-corrupt dev team. (177 points, 65 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Devs can't just say the price of Bitcoin should be stuck at $100 per coin. The market decides. Just like Core shouldn't say the size of a block is stuck at 1MB. The market should decide! Take centrally planned actors OUT of the equation. This is Bitcoin-- Not the Federal Reserve. (145 points, 39 comments)
    4. Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows. (120 points, 34 comments)
    5. Miner Jiang Zhou'er: "I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive. ..some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation." (95 points, 63 comments)
    6. We need more exclusive content for /btc with watermarks stating against censorship in /bitcoin. The new content will be effective in spreading the word! (79 points, 32 comments)
    7. No one (except the market) knows what the price of Bitcoin should be, just like no one (except the market) knows what the size of blocks should be. Bitcoin Unlimited allows a market-decided blocksize. Bitcoin Core allows a centrally planned blocksize. (74 points, 20 comments)
    8. MYTH: "Bitcoin Unlimited isn't meant for mining." -- FACT: ViaBTC has been mining with BU and has the best performance of ALL pools. [see link inside] (71 points, 61 comments)
    9. It is likely a Core-affiliated extremist will attack pools mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks. I recommend Bitcoin.com Pool goes live ASAP, with over 10% hashrate, so we have multiple pools for redundancy. 10-12% hashrate is not enough in the face of attackers who try to artificially activate Segwit. (64 points, 52 comments)
    10. Theymos: "I know how moderation affects people" ... "This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it and bitcoin.org" (2015) (59 points, 43 comments)
  9. 1111 points, 52 submissions: knight222
    1. ViaBTC: "I think the most important thing is BU has the support of Bitmain and F2pool, they have said privately they will switch to BU, I am very much looking forward to the arrival of that day." (86 points, 68 comments)
    2. /BTC Enthusiasts Want The /Bitcoin Moderators Gone Once And For All (77 points, 9 comments)
    3. Total Bitcoin Transaction Volume Surpassed US$100bn in September (53 points, 17 comments)
    4. Fedora Receives Its Own Electrum Bitcoin Wallet Client (50 points, 4 comments)
    5. IRS Demands Records of 4.8 Million Bitcoin Users over 3 Alleged Tax Dodgers (43 points, 4 comments)
    6. Several Mycelium Users Report Unusually High Bitcoin Transaction Fees (40 points, 38 comments)
    7. Overstock Reveals Latest Effort Within the Bitcoin Space (40 points, 2 comments)
    8. EY Switzerland, World Top Four Accounting Firm, to Accept Bitcoin (40 points, 2 comments)
    9. Chinese dominance in the blockchain space now includes startup investments (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. Will Bitcoin Become the new "Swiss Bank Account"? (31 points, 10 comments)
  10. 939 points, 5 submissions: JohnBlocke
    1. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin (461 points, 251 comments)
    2. Peter Todd in 2013: "If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do?..." (158 points, 85 comments)
    3. UPDATE: Coindesk & Bitcoin Magazine still have not mentioned the $1.2 million donated by members of the Bitcoin industry to fund protocol development. What is their agenda? (118 points, 23 comments)
    4. John Blocke: Echo Chambers (116 points, 53 comments)
    5. Bitcoin companies pledge to donate $1.2M USD to protocol development, and not a peep from the bitcoin media? (86 points, 21 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Noosterdam (3181 points, 564 comments)
  2. H0dlr (2189 points, 354 comments)
  3. ViaBTC (1994 points, 65 comments)
  4. seweso (1887 points, 377 comments)
  5. todu (1883 points, 365 comments)
  6. Helvetian616 (1662 points, 265 comments)
  7. Ant-n (1554 points, 453 comments)
  8. dskloet (1521 points, 230 comments)
  9. MemoryDealers (1500 points, 104 comments)
  10. Egon_1 (1475 points, 134 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin by BeijingBitcoins (625 points, 125 comments)
  2. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin by JohnBlocke (461 points, 251 comments)
  3. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China by BeijingBitcoins (398 points, 101 comments)
  4. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted." by sandakersmann (376 points, 184 comments)
  5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted by blockologist (371 points, 69 comments)
  6. I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything! by ViaBTC (337 points, 858 comments)
  7. Bitcoin Classic is Back! by ThomasZander (279 points, 92 comments)
  8. Problem? No problems here. by mohrt (246 points, 105 comments)
  9. nullc is actively trying to delete Satoshi from history. First he assigned all satoshi commits on github to himself, then he wanted to get rid of the whitepaper as it is and now notice how he never says "Satoshi", he says "Bitcoin's Creator". by blockstreamcoin (243 points, 243 comments)
  10. Censorship test from Gavin: post two positive things one about BU and another about SW, and see what happens by chakrop (240 points, 69 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 206 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  2. 118 points: solex1's comment in Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted."
  3. 110 points: viners's comment in "It cannot be permitted to work." nullc
  4. 97 points: jstolfi's comment in Is LN vaporware and if not why do posters keep saying it is? (x-post from bitcoin)
  5. 95 points: satoshis_sockpuppet's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  6. 91 points: dskloet's comment in Cannot wait for Core trolls who don't understand queue theory to lose it. Grab your popcorn as we finally approach 100% utilization and an ever increasing backlog.
  7. 90 points: BitcoinXio's comment in I love Bitcoin
  8. 86 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  9. 85 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  10. 82 points: Noosterdam's comment in John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

How to buy BIP with BTC via BIP.DEV No one can Hack bitcoin Private key How to Create Bitcoin Wallet Account Bitcoin Q&A: BitPay and BIP-70 controversy Buy Bitcoins with Paypal (Local Bitcoins option)

Minter price today is $0.00312434 with a 24-hour trading volume of $28,645. BIP price is up 0.5% in the last 24 hours. It has a circulating supply of 2.8 Billion coins and a max supply of 10 Billion coins. Bithumb Global is the current most active market trading it. Get the BipCoin price live now - BIP price is down by 0% today. (BIP/USD), stock, chart, prediction, exchange, candlestick chart, coin market cap, historical data/chart, volume, supply, value, rate & other info. BIP stands for Bitcoin Improvment Protocol – meaning if you have an idea to make Bitcoin better you can draft it up and if it’s accepted by the community they will start using it. So BIP38 is just the 38th proposal submitted to the Bitcoin Improvement Protocol which is currently adopted by Bitcoin users for protecting their private keys. BipCoin (BIP) current price and details - USD. Existing circulation, market capitalization, volume of transactions and more details of BipCoin. Get the BipCoin price live now - BIP price is down by 0% today. (BIP/CHF), stock, chart, prediction, exchange, candlestick chart, coin market cap, historical data/chart, volume, supply, value, rate & other info.

[index] [4664] [39848] [8111] [29045] [45290] [28901] [5976] [49998] [40221] [30891]

How to buy BIP with BTC via BIP.DEV

How To Make A Secure BIP 38 Encrypted Bitcoin Paper Wallet - TUTORIAL - Duration: 13:38. MrJayBusch 118,414 views. 13:38. HowTo Store Bitcoins on Stainless Steel Dog Tags - Duration: 7:07. ... BIP.DEV – https://bip.dev Minter Console – https://console.minter.network Minter Network – https://minter.network The information in this video is provided ‘as is’. Use it at your own ... Skip navigation Sign in. Search How To Make A Secure BIP 38 Encrypted Bitcoin Paper Wallet - TUTORIAL - Duration: 13:38. MrJayBusch 116,917 views. 13:38. How to Start Using Bitcoin in Five Easy Steps - Duration: 9:55. ... Building on Bitcoin conference Lisbon, 3-4 July 2018 Sergio D Lerner: A Drivechain BIP, enabling the OP_COUNT_ACKS opcode to add Bitcoin drivechain capabilit...

#