Inb4 Roger Ver rage quits a la Mike Hearn : Bitcoin
Inb4 Roger Ver rage quits a la Mike Hearn : Bitcoin
Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it "has failed"
Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed' Reuters
Lead developer quits Bitcoin saying it 'has failed ...
Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed' : economy
An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project
A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway. The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it. Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible. Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF. On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork. A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are. Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH. Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018. These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented. For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
Dear Bitcoin community (all of it), I've been investing in Bitcoin since 2012 and have seen many ups and downs over the past 5 years. I was a big believer for a while, I stuck around during the last hardfork, during the Mt. Gox collapse, during the dark days of the Bearwhale, during the Paycoin/GAW scam, after Mike Hearn's rage-quit — point is, I've been around. Like most people, I have a pretty minimal understanding of the underlying cryptography and code of Bitcoin itself. I'm in this for two reasons:
I like the idea of a currency that is governed by math, not governments.
I have so far made money on it and believe I can make more as the idea takes deeper and deeper root.
Now, here's the thing: Bitcoin is getting harder and harder to use. I can't just send Bitcoins to someone anymore. I've stopped evangelizing about it because I don't want to get embarrassed by a 40-minute transaction and because I don't want to pay a dollar to send a dollar. I don't care what fixes it. But right now, it's broken as far as the average user concerned. Segwit, to be honest, sounds like an unnecessarily complex 'solution' that may or may not address the issue. But raising the block size limit (ideally making it dynamic) just sounds like the best, most practical solution to a person like me who does not have the time or inclination to read through scores of scientific whitepapers or scour line after line of code. My point is this: I'm not buying Bitcoins anymore. In fact, I'm shorting them heavily. Ethereum is the new game in town, and right now, it's on track to win out long term. Because: 1. It's not broken. If I send Ether, it arrives. 2. The fees aren't out of control. A few cents — as it should be. I'm not being punished for actually using the coin. 3. Devs listen to the community. Not the other way around. 4. They had the balls to fork. The DAO incident and the ensuing debate over Ethereum Classic were settled. The Ethereum blockchain is fine and Ethereum Classic is becoming a footnote for the hardliners to rally around. So, to the BU/Classic devs, I say the time has come. This has gone on entirely too long. Quit waiting for permission from the Chinese miners. They are after a fee market and will draw it out as long as they can. The first rule of economics: "People will do what they are incentivized to do.". The power of Bitcoin's persuasion does not lie in its hashing power. It lies in investors and users like me. If we have a useful coin, we will turn it into a profitable coin, which will make it a coin worth mining. We're not going to settle this with anything other than a fork. "Consensus" will only come when there are actually two options. So, let's do it. Let's take the short term hit to the price by releasing this thing into the wild. The better coin will win out eventually. Be it Segwit, BU/Classic, or Ethereum, or Monero, or Litecoin, or any other coin out there. I personally think it may already be too late, but the time has long since come. Bitcoin must evolve now or die a slow death.
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
UASF is basically what you would expect to see if Bitcoin were being divided intentionally
I've been involved in Bitcoin for a long time. I know the problem it is trying to solve. And I recognize the hurdles placed in the way of doing so. One of those hurdles, as we have all seen, is systematic manipulation and censorship. At some point, each of us has noticed that different people in Bitcoin seem to have had different experiences surrounding the same major events, since its creation. Each of us has witnessed the deliberate manipulation, the lies and censorship, that exacerbates this division. Why did Satoshi really quit? Is Gavin really trustworthy? Why did he quit? What about Mike Hearn? What really happened with pirateat40? What really happened with the bear whale? What happened at MtGox? Is Roger Ver trustworthy? What about Peter Vessenes and the Bitcoin Foundation? Why did they add Satoshi to their list of "founders"? Is Blockstream trustworthy? What happened to Theymos and all those Bitcoins he raised to build a new forum? Who really is Craig Wright, and why would trustworthy people believe his claims? Why would others dismiss them out of hand? Ask ten different questions. You will get a hundred different answers. People can't even seem to agree on a common interpretation of a fifty-word agreement that they all negotiated and signed. Why is that, exactly? Trading and finance and currency are ultimately just information games. Having the right information at the right time, and being able to trust it, can make you rich. Having the wrong information, and trusting it, can make you poor. And in the fiat world, at least, having no information, or taking the default position of not trusting anything, is guaranteed to make you poor, over time. Bitcoin was designed to change that. Bitcoin was designed to overcome the information coordination problem. It was intended to reverse this fundamental bias of the modern economy towards disinformation, destruction and poverty. And the way it does this, the innovation which enables it to do so in a trustless manner, is proof-of-work. Yes, Bitcoin is "decentralized," as it was designed to produce economic decentralization. But to say that there is no central authority is a blatant lie. The central authority is the genesis block, and all valid blocks after that which have the most proof of work. The central authority is the group of wonderful, intelligent, selfless people who worked tirelessly, both before Satoshi and after, to bring Bitcoin into fruition and unite the world behind it. The central authority is our shared recognition of the ordering and inclusion of transactions in the chain of transactions that goes back to the beginning. It can be distributed, divided among many miners and among many individuals controlling various pieces of Bitcoin, as seems to have been deliberately done. But it must be global. It must be shared. It must be voluntary. And it must be valid. Therefore, every attempt to alter the definition of "validity" should be evaluated with extreme skepticism. Who is making this proposal? What is their connection to Bitcoin, and to its creation? What are their other connections, and motivations? What are the methods used to promote this proposal, and to counter its detractors? Does this proposal continue to unite the Bitcoin community, or does it divide it needlessly? I have witnessed, over the past seven years, Bitcoin become progressively more and more separated from its creation. I have seen individuals come and go with little explanation. I have seen a few controversial and influential figures intentionally segregated. And I have seen Bitcoin suffer for it. I can't help but wonder whether this is not only intentional, but malicious. I, myself, have done my own small part to attempt to unite Bitcoin, to re-connect it to its creation, to determine and to share what is really going on. For this, I have been censored and maligned. I don't take it personally. But it does beg the question: Is Bitcoin being deliberately divided? I'm not talking about decentralization, whether of nodes or of mining or of development or of trading or of discussion or of the real Bitcoin economy. That's all well and good. I'm talking about fundamental, basic, irreversible... division. Permanent and intentional separation of Bitcoin, from its creation.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
Been drama city for months, finally just exploded with Mike Hearn (one of the ol devs) quitting bitcoin development and selling all his coins. Most importantly announcing it on his way out the door. He's mad because his blocksize proposal didn't gain traction. Anyways, dude has his balls deep in a direct competitor so no wonder. Bitcoin classic (a fork proposal) has passed critical mining majority (50% on board and counting) which is a blocksize increase amongst a change in "control". Basically it's a dream for bitcoin, one of its hugest hurdles at the moment looks to be solved shortly and the price tanked thanks to Hearn releasing am article in NYT. Great buy opportunity and it seems to have hit bottom. Out @460 weeks ago in @360s meow. Tl;dr Crybaby Dev with stake in competitor quits and spreads tons of FUD, plebs panic-sell right as consensus is finally coming to fruition on scaling issue. Not to mention inflation is set to halve this year 7k in Edit: Was 365when I started typing, 375 10minutes later. How the fuck do you not all trade bitcoin? It's so volatile, fucking beautiful.
Can a core dev explain again what's the problem with 2mb + seg wit ?
For clarification purposes, I'm not a computer scientist. I'm quite well informed on Bitcoin and economics and I am a bitcoin holder. And I run a proper node (well non mining..). Good Bitcoiner here :) I still don't know which side of the block size is right. I assume good faith from both sides and to me the ad-hominem attacks and accusation of nefarious intents are silly (Except in the case of Mike Hearn who ironically championed these dirty tactics) I think it's a good thing he is gone, because too divisive, too statist, didn't see anything wrong with centralisation, blacklisting etc.. Jeff and Gavin on the other hand I have no doubt have a lot of skin in the game and hold very dear the ideals of Bitcoin: freedom. And both of them pay attention not only to the technical side but also to the economics of Bitcoin. Now I have to say that if forced to choose, my logic would I guess be to stick with core developpers. Bitcoin is far from its final form and they are the one getting us there. They have delivered in the last few years, and are also building a lot of the innovations most of us are looking forward to. So the the technical side of it seems to be in their favor. BUT I have discussed this issue multiple times with friends (including computer engineers) and most of us still don't get what is the REAL problem with reasonably bigger blocks. I think one big issue is that some people who were arguing for 1mb in the past came up with the node count as a reason to not increase the blocksize. The number of bitcoin nodes hasn't fallen from 10K+ to 5k because it's costly to run a node at 1mb. It is very cheap to run a node for the majority of the users. Marginal cost almost 0. More or less the same for 4mb. The reason people are not running nodes is because they don't care. It's the same thing as GHASH, people will run nodes when they feel we are REALLY too low. They will only care if they see an imminent dangewarning. It's a little bit of hassle to run a node: human being are extremely lazy, just forwarding a port for example or letting your computer run 24/24 is a roadblock. The hassle again is more or less the same at 1mb or 4mb. At way higher size, you could have a node on a barebone for a few hundred bucks. This is nothing, we have thousands of people holding 5-8 figures in $ of bitcoin. They could spend much more than that on running a node if they had to. So I think this argument is counterproductive because easily dismissed. Everytime I hear it, I feel like if it's all that you have, then let's do it. But I suspect there are much stronger arguments to be made, so I would like to hear about them. That's why I'm posting here. So can you explain in layman's terms why exactly 4mb (2m+seg wit) blocks pose any serious problem ?What's the treshold and why? I mean Adam Back was proposing 8mb (So 4mb with seg witness) only a few months ago. And If 4mb is fine then, why not do it ? I understand this is part a political decision, people (business, bitcoin holders) are worried about Bitcoin's adoption and future viability. Maybe they should just wait patiently.. But on the other hand if 4mb is not a technical problem then why not accomodate them ? It's not like we are anywhere near mainstream adoption, it's not impacting a fundamental characteristic of Bitcoin either (decentralisation, scarcity, fungibility -which is still lacking a bit-). If you think it's impacting decentralisation, then can you please lay out clear arguments once again? TLDR: not decided on which side is right, support bitcoin core, trust Gavin and Jeff too, don't think node count is a valid argument, ask what's the real technical problem and the treshold with 4mb or more. Edit:
Some answers on this page: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#size-bump but doesn't provide very strong arguments against 2mb in my opinion. "We don't have the experience" => Now might be a goodtime to experience it. "Upgrades Required" => Doesn't seem like a major reason not do it. "Other changes required"=> Let's see what Bitcoin Classic proposes on these ?
On the Bitcoin core Slack, somebody told me for him the problem is the Hard fork not the size increase. For him a Hard fork without strong consensus constitutes a breach of the social contract. But there was no strong technical arguments presentented. However I don't think any core dev were presents to answer.
I mined the top comments from every "Daily Discussion" thread on /r/BitcoinMarkets since 2014 & indexed their URL's for easy access. Check it out!
Hey all - Like many of you, I read the "Daily Discussion" threads on /bitcoinmarkets and /ethtrader. A week or two back, I decided it'd be smart/valuable to mine the top comments for each daily thread with the goal of eventually enabling sentiment analysis & scoring via machine learning. As of today, I have data going back to January 2014 for Bitcoin and March 2016 for Ethereum. I have the URL for every daily thread indexed, and built a simple web app dashboard so you can easily find a particular day's content: https://teachmehowto.trade/reddit-mine Screenshot (for those on mobile): https://i.imgur.com/ogpTYTD.png The raw comments are stored in a MySQL RDS instance: https://i.imgur.com/f9PvteL.png So for those of you who wanna reminisce, or dig in the archives, I've hopefully made it a little easier to go back in time. For kicks, here's are a few of the gems to remind you just how far we've come:
For any data scientists with experience in NLP that see this and wanna collaborate on that aspect, don't hesitate to reach out! I'm working on making each day's data available for download from S3 in a .csv.gz or similar for ingestion into ML frameworks. Feedback is always welcome. There's a couple donation links in the 'About' modal if you feel inclined to buy me a beer (not gonna spam them here). Enjoy!
There are many coincidences involving a Mike Hearn and Satoshi Nakamoto connection. Some of you will automatically reject the notion because you dislike Mike Hearn, although here on /btc I figured you may at least entertain the idea since he isn't as hated here. I have seen Mike Hearn on the long list of “Satoshi candidates” posted on bitcointalk but I have never seen anyone explore the idea. Besides Mike being British and Satoshi using British English my first inclination to even consider Mike Hearn as being Satoshi Nakamoto was that Mike’s bitcointalk.org profile was created 1 day after Satoshi last logged in to the forum. Satoshi’s profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3 Mike’s profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2700 Mike’s bitcointalk presence began 1 day 53 minutes and 13 seconds after Satoshi’s bitcointalk presence ended. Almost exactly 1 day separating their profiles seemed odd to me especially considering the impact Mike had in development later on. Why would Satoshi Nakamoto hide his real identity? The people who created the precursors to Bitcoin were not anonymous. Satoshi even referenced multiple influences by name in his whitepaper like Wei Dai, Ralph Merkle, and Adam Back. So why did the person behind Satoshi feel the need to remain anonymous? There doesn’t seem to be any precedent in the small niche of people who attempted to make digital/electronic cash. A lot of people are constantly regurgitating the idea that Satoshi knew how big Bitcoin would become and that Governments or nefarious people would want to hunt him down for his bitcoin holdings or for simply inventing bitcoin. In reality, Satoshi didn’t even know if his invention would gain traction. Satoshi didn’t know he would be one of a handful of users running bitcoin in the first year which would allow him to mine as many blocks as he did. Satoshi didn’t know how much bitcoin would actually be worth. So I think the better question is why would Mike Hearn hide is identity? Mike Hearn in mid August 2006 was hired on by Google as a Site Reliability Engineer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090514053312/http://mikehearn.wordpress.com:80/2006/08/) Why would an employee of Google secretly develop something? Well, Google themselves sum it up pretty nicely here:
As part of your employment agreement, Google most likely owns intellectual property (IP) you create while at the company. Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google.
From: Mike Hearn [email protected] Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM To: Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] Hi Satoshi, I hope you are doing well. I finally got all the lawyers happy enough to release BitCoinJ under the Google name using the Apache 2 license: ….
Fun. Here's mine, 12th April 2009. Back then the only documentation was the white paper and hardly anyone had explored the code, so a lot of my questions were very newbie-ish. Also I capitalized Bitcoin wrong.
But Mike continued to capitalize Bitcoin as BitCoin not just in that email but until May 14, 2011. Why is that interesting? Well, every thread and post he responded to that mentioned the word bitcoin didn’t capitalize the “C” ever. It would seem like he was almost doing it on purpose to show what a noob he was to the project. Oh then he of course points out the fact that he was a newbie for capitalizing bitcoin that way. It is odd that he continued to use that spelling without regard to how everyone else was spelling it and then later direct people’s attention to the fact that he use to spell it that way early on. Also, what is odd about Mike’s involvement early on is that it doesn’t really parallel with his natural online demeanor. He is very vocal and has an involved online presence yet he just really isn’t vocal during the early stages of Bitcoin. Even his personal blog posts came to a halt in early 2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111130084418/http://mikehearn.wordpress.com:80/ For someone who is generally very active online before Bitcoin and then after Satoshi’s disappearence, I find it peculiar that there is a dead silence period from Mike Hearn while Satoshi existed online. Mike went Facebook silent from July 23, 2007 to March 8, 2011 which also coincides with Satoshi’s existence and pre-release development of Bitcoin. https://www.facebook.com/i.am.the.real.mike?lst=662933243%3A61203304%3A1502324015 The next step in my exploration of this idea was to create a calendar of time periods where Satoshi was silent on the forums. For example, Satoshi was silent on the forum from March 24, 2010 until May 16, 2010. I am guessing this is a period when Satoshi was away from his home travelling or vacationing. I was wanting to then correspond them with known dates when Mike was on vacations or at a conference, but as I stated above MIke wasn’t very public during Satoshi’s presence. If anyone knows of any of the potential Satoshis that were vacationing, hospitalized (Hal?), or travelling during that March to May gap in 2010, it would be a good link to the real Satoshi. Hal Finney was also involved at the start only to leave and eventually return. He came back a month before Satoshi departed though. Hal was the recipient of bitcoins first transaction and helped Satoshi troubleshoot early problems [Suspicious link removed]j.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf Their correspondence lead me to believe that Satoshi may have had either a rapport or at the least some familiarity with Hal. I decided to search Mike Hearn and Hal Finney together which turned up a nice find. Here, https://sourceforge.net/p/tboot/mailman/tboot-devel/?style=threaded&viewmonth=200807 Mike and Hal are talking about Trusted Computing back in July 2008, just months before the bitcoin whitepaper surfaced. Unfortunately I don’t quite fully understand Trusted Computing and the reason Mike Hearn was inquiring about a trusted web browser or how it would relate to Bitcoin, Quote
I'd like to launch Firefox in a protected domain and have it usable for surfing the web. My vague, poorly thought out plan was to let the user pick a photo from a library as proof of the trusted path, then show it in a tab at startup. Once you saw the personal photo, you'd know you were interacting with a copy of the browser that'd be safe to use even on a malware-riddled machine.
However, I did also find this thread from Mike Hearn which Hal Finney later resurrected about TC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67508.0 And even more interesting, Hal Finney later wrote in his brief memoir of bitcoin, “Bitcoin and Me”, posted on the bitcointalk forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) that he was currently “working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets.” Was Mike Hearn originally researching a use for trusted computing in Bitcoin but never implemented it only to later pass it on to Hal FInney as a “suggestion”? Mike on Google+ posted a link to Hal’s TC project when he learned Hal passed away and linked to Hal’s post on BTCtalk (https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn ; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154290.0 ) So, here is Satoshi stating he started working on bitcoin in 2007 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617, here Satoshi said he was done writing Bitcoin by July 2008 because that is when Google protocol buffers was made public”I looked at Google protocol buffers when they were released last year, but I had already written everything by then.” https://pastebin.com/Na5FwkQ4 and then above Mike Hearn in July 2008 is seeking guidance from Hal about trusted computing and then Hal working on trusted computing application on the suggestion of Mike for bitcoin. Ok why? Well bitcoin was already done by July 2008 when Mike was inquiring about TC and Hal was working on a TC application later, meaning that TC has some application not related to the core of bitcoin but rather to a peripheral of bitcoin and Mike may have been researching that possibility. [Super Weak] Searching for more clues about Satoshi I came across a colloquial/slang term that he used. “Hack on” was used by Satoshi in the context of “work on”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034.msg13206#msg13206 I found multiple instances where Mike Hearn used the same exact term in the same context: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-April/007779.htmlhttp://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/hczWIAby/bitcoin-development-cartographerhttps://web.archive.org/web/20170628004052/http://www.advogato.org/person/mikehearn/https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-March/msg00031.html I do admit the “hack on” argument is lame evidence as it is somewhat common term. However, not everyone used it in that context (like Hal Finney didn’t) and it does add to the list of coincidences. [Warning: Extreme Reaching] Another super weak semi-coincidence is Mike Hearns birthday. Mike’s birthday is April 17th, 1984. Satoshi’s birthday was chosen as April 5th, 1975. I don’t know about you, but a lot of times when I have to enter a birthday in a service where I don’t want them knowing the truth, I usually always use my real birth month with fake day and year. [More reaching] adding 1975’s digits equal adding 1984’s digits/ 7+5=12 and 8+4=12. I know, I know... According to Mike Hearn, Satoshi “communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving. He told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other things and that the project was in good hands.“ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145850.msg1558053#msg1558053 This is also backed up by the new email release here: https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET Mike- “I had a few other things on my mind (as always). One is, are you planning on rejoining the community at some point (eg for code reviews), or is your plan to permanently step back from the limelight?” Satoshi- “I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.” The above communication is supposedly the first time anyone heard that Satoshi was leaving for good and it was none other than Mike Hearn as the recipient. Then a few days later Satoshi told Gavin the same thing. None of these things points or alludes to Mike being Satoshi by themselves. But I do think that all these things together do paint a possible connection. Mike denied being Satoshi when I emailed him and also didn’t seem to care that I would post these things online attempting to connect him to Satoshi.
I was extremely disappointed by the announcement at http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/29n8o0/100000_bounty_winner_announcement/ of the winner in the recent $100,000 Bitcoin Foundation replacement challenge. The winner was announced to be mike_hearn, who I criticized in depth on Monday for what will be an ineffective plan designed to produce high-quality updates to the bitcoin codebase. You can read Monday's comments for the reasons why I believe his proposal is flawed. Both of the entrants who were congratulated in that announcement were significantly flawed and I don't believe either one will address the problem in any meaningful fashion. Hearn's proposal ignores the economics of software development and naively assumes that piecemeal development is going to produce quality work, or that the best developers are going to quit jobs for what amounts to temp work with no benefits. The "Eris" proposal is better, but fails on the fundamental flaw that it was built on the Ethereum network. The Ethereum developers have interests that are not aligned with the bitcoin developers' interests, and Ethereum is a premined currency where almost a quarter is held by a small group. The Eris proposal introduces an unnecessary dependency that, if Ethereum fails, would bring significant harm to bitcoins. Everything that Ethereum does can be done with bitcoin, and there are already some services sprouting up to build on top of the existing bitcoin protocol. A truly innovative solution would have developed a way to run a system like Eris on top of bitcoin. This is what happens when you offer bounties. Instead of getting exceptional results, you have to choose between suboptimal, rushed choices. Not only that, but the money is essentially wasted; Hearn, who is backed by VCs and is rich himself, does not need to win $100,000. While $100,000 is not enough money to produce great software, it could have been a nice payment for a proof-of-concept by a group with a workable idea that was vetted before development began.
Russia softens stance on bitcoin
One of the best pieces of news to come out recently is that Russia has "softened its stance" on the use of bitcoins. Given that the Chinese and Russians share many common interests in the world and are both dictatorial regimes, some of the Chinese bankers must be particularly perturbed by this decision. I wouldn't expect this news to have any impact at all on the markets or even on the adoption of bitcoins in Russia. Even if bitcoins were made 100% legal tomorrow, it would still take Russian businessmen many years to produce services like those already present in the West.
Just when the previous two days could not have possibly had more good news for cryptocurrencies, GHash.io again threatens by raising its market share to 43%. As I've stated before, I'm not significantly concerned that GHash.io is going to take over the network in any way. The major concern is whether news articles start appearing from people who claim that bitcoins are going to be done because of this event. I was involved in a conversation with some people last week and we were trying to puzzle out their business model. I, at least, was unable to do so. For our pool, we are going to spend about $4k in hardware plus $219.99/month in bandwidth. These costs are incurred not even on day one, but on day -30, well before we can even launch. This stuff isn't cheap and GHash.io has to buy computers like this to support their operations. You can't run a 0% mining pool without some source of revenue. Doing this out of the goodness of your heart to support the network requires 1% just to break even. GHash.io, therefore, is losing money to offer their service. What could a business possibly want with a product that not only loses money, but never has any potential to earn money? It's not as if you're selling propane at a loss in the summer becuase you know its value will be higher to people in the winter. Here, GHash.io just gives away stuff for nothing at their own expense without ever expecting anything in return. The key to figuring stuff out is always to follow the money. Where is the money to be made here? One way to make money is to control the flow of transactions in some way, but since anyone can take transaction fees, it doesn't make sense for someone to pay more for "priority" service to them. They could be trying to reduce variance for their in-house mining operation, but if their in-house operation mines as many blocks as people say it does, why does variance matter if you control 25% of the network versus 50%? Another thought is that they simply have no business plan, and they are like the startups in '99 that VCs were pouring millions into. The plan during the dot-com bubble was simply to get more users, and once there are lots of users, some company will be foolish enough to buy the unprofitable company out.
More prognosticators trying to "forget" predictions
Right on the hands of CryptoCoinsNews ignoring that they predicted bitcoins would fall to $120 in May, we have this guy (http://newsbtc.com/2014/07/01/prof-mark-t-williams-concerns-bitcoin-remain/) saying "My concerns about bitcoin remain." It seems to be commonplace that people who make incorrect predictions never attempt to even analyze what could have caused them to be incorrect. I would have thought that a tenured professor would be of a higher ethical caliber than the CryptoCoinsNews authors, but I guess degrees have little to do with apologizing for being wrong.
Two types of people
After some of the commentary about yesterday's scenario of damage by a roommate, I realized that there are two types of people in the world, which I will call "parasitic" and "growth" people. "Parasitic" people are those who you believe are friends and who you get along with well, until some point where underlying negative behavior is exposed. These people are willing to take advantage of you, whether they begin the friendship/acquaintence/relationship with that in mind or not. One example is yesterday's story. Another is a case where I signed a contract to do video of a wedding a few years ago as a free gift, only to find out when I arrived that I was asked to pay for my lodging. Even if the lodging had not been included in the contract (which it was), a reasonable person would have recognized that the right thing to do is to provide cheap accomodations when a $2000 video was being provided for nothing. In another instance, I offered to make DVD copies back when DVD-R's were expensive, about $5 each. Some people took the copies and later never mentioned paying for the materials. Another example is when you go to a restuarant and order cranberry juice, and the other people order five wines each. Parasitic people assume that it's acceptable to split the bill. A counterexample to those people are "growth" people, who are genuinely interested in helping others. One time, I called someone who owned a house in a vacation area and inquired what hotels were the best places to stay in the area. She offered her house, which was worth $1000/wk, and not only that, she showed up at the house to cook meals and provide transportation and tours, taking nothing in return. She refused my offer of a visit to our house, and offered to host us again later. The problem is that "parasitic" people make up about 90% of the population, and "growth" people make up only about 10%. My theory is that many people set too low a bar for their associations, and therefore get taken advantage of by such people. I think that what one needs to do is to immediately sever ties with people when they start to inordinately rely on your money, your kindness, or your time. Many people, however, correctly recognize that the growth people are rare, and "settle" for friendships with the parasitic people. The key is recognizing that it's better to have no friends at all than to have parasitic people in your life. When you try to retain contact with the parasitic types, you end up losing valuable resources (like money, time, and energy) that could be better spent towards meeting people of a higher caliber. Therefore, while I was initially shocked at the condemnation of the roommate in most of the replies, I'm of agreement with the commenters in the previous thread that it's important to continually watch out for this sort of behavior and get those people out of your life before they drag you down.
I will be in Philly this Saturday and Sunday for the holidays. Also, every other Thursday a Toastmasters day, so I'll post on Friday and resume Monday, with short or no posts the other days. Hopefully, bitcoin_charlie or two_bit_misfit will fill the gap so people don't get bored.
Bitcoin Cash can turn in to the biggest non violent protest against the establishment ever : "We simply stop using their money." Which is a great way of getting edgy teenagers to join us. There is an almost infinite supply of edgy teenagers in the world. (153 points, 42 comments)
The next wave of attack will be all the big internet giants supporting Bitcoin Core and LN. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, I bet you that the more successful Bitcoin Cash becomes the more you will see big cooperation’s be forced to go with compromised Bitcoin. (25 points, 28 comments)
Just because the nChain patents aren't on the base protocol level doesn't mean it's a good idea, BCH could end up with patents which are so part of its normal use it will effectively be part of it. (13 points, 33 comments)
BCH showerthought: The first one or two killer apps for Bitcoin Cash that drive mass adoption will be the thing that decides the standards/denominations based on what people are using and catches on. Not a small forum poll or incessantly loud Twitter spam. (167 points, 24 comments)
Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are Low-Level CopyCats and We Do Support Onchain Scaling
Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc on 2 Dec. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling. We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here. Let’s see: Q: How do you comment on BU? A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad. Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU. Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin. BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong. (from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ? Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:) We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins. Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions. Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange. A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential. Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork? I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW. But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes. If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals. Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling. Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore? A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all. For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools. At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed. I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB. For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system. In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years. Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.htmlhttps://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increasehttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core. Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing. Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit? Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff. If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin. Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response. Activity of BU on GitHub Imgur Activity of Core Imgur Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992chttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229 Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future? Imgur It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever. Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can. Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone. SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB. Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/ Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference? A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC. Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report? A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine. The AMA is conducted in Chinese. Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English. To see the original Chinese AMA text, Please first sign in on news.8btc.com , the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread: http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining ... Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining ... Mike Hearn quits Bitcoin: https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.acxy4scp3 Help me invite him to Dash:... Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining holdings because it had A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are...
Mike Hearn, Crash Landing - https: ... We also provide helpful tools and real-time market price and chart information, as well as Bitcoin mining and Bitcoin events information.-- Follow Bitcoin ... Mike Hearn's move from Bitcoin to Banks ... Bitcoin Group - First Bitcoin Mining IPO - BnkToTheFuture Case Study - Duration: 4 minutes, 14 seconds. BnkToTheFuture.com. 3 years ago; 764 views; http ... Mike Hearn, Bitcoin Core Developer NBC2014 - Duration: 29:31. ... "Centralisation of Bitcoin Mining?" - Andreas Antonopoulos - Duration: 8:06. Bitcoin TV Recommended for you. 8:06 . Gut bacteria ... Johann Barbie, Co-Founder of 37Coins: Married wallets are a new concept 37coins has implemented and contributed to the bitcoinj repository. Married wallets allow users to seamlessly fuse their ... Bitcoin Lead Mike Hearn developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed'. Watch the full video to know more insights Subscribe to Times Of India's Youtube chan...