Bitcoin.org Owner Theymos To Rewrite Satoshi Nakamoto's ...

What exactly happened to change /r/Bitcoin and how effective was it? Graphs and sources show the indisputable damage.

(This was originally submitted in response to this comment which said: )
Well, I haven't been around here long enough to really comment on stuff getting completely deleted, but I'll take people's word for it!
You don't need to, take a look at this
Notice how the upvotes there are completely different from what you'd see today.
And here: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/40ppt9/censored_front_page_thread_about_bitcoin_classic/?sort=top
The mod that un-removed the post after Theymos removed it was removed as a mod that same day. Notice the ?sort=top in the link there? Threads are always sorted by top by default. But moderators can change the default sort for threads, so what did /Bitcoin do? Sort by controversial by default on certain threads only to push down opinions they didn't like. Remove the ?sort=top part and reload the page to see exactly what I mean and how it changes the discussion.
That was then, how about now? People get banned literally just for saying they support 2x.
So what happened to change /Bitcoin so drastically? Well I can't prove this, but here's the graphs that show my theory. If you look here, the subscriber growth of /Bitcoin was pretty low for all of 2016 - Sept 2015 to Jan 2017 = 172k to 200k(+16%), lower even than the raw growth of Reddit, 9.5m to 14.9m(+57%), and remember... that counts dead & throwaway accounts.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin and Crypto more than doubled in size - 110k transactions per day Sept 2015, 260k transactions per day January 2017 - +136%. And Bitcoin/Crypto quadrupled in price/market cap, +251%.
In other words, while Bitcoin itself more than doubled in size, /Bitcoin actually shrank significantly compared to Reddit's growth. Why? Because for every new person who joined /Bitcoin, more than one person left. Where did they all go? Well some went to /btc, but not nearly enough to account for the missing ~350k subscribers that Reddit+bitcoin growth would predict. But where did they go then?
To other Crypto-Currencies. The developers went to build them, everyone else invested and promoted. Mr. Market is slow, but Mr. Market always sees everything, and he caught up when the Bitcoin scaling issue really slammed into the ceiling.
/Bitcoin literally got rid of all of the people who disagreed, exactly like Theymos wanted in that first link above:
"If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave."
And Theymos did, in fact, change the direction of Bitcoin singlehandedly, exactly as he said he would do when confronted in 2015:
"But if people assume/accept majority rule in Bitcoin, then this view can dominate and end up actually coming into force."
And we all suffer for his egotistical incompetence.
 
These links are all archived or screen-shotted if the mods of /Bitcoin go changing things.
submitted by JustSomeBadAdvice to btc [link] [comments]

We need to talk. The Bitcoin that Satoshi envisioned is dying as people just walk away.

 
We need to have a talk.
I've been a part of the bitcoin community since 2011 and right now I genuinely think Satoshi's vision for bitcoin is on the very edge of disappearing forever. Long-time community members are simply throwing their hands up and walking away. I know I have come pretty close to doing that myself.
If we don't do something before too many users leave we will have no hope in changing Bitcoin's course back to what everyone originally envisioned. In all honestly we may already be too late. If you look at the charts for this sub you will see the use of it has been steadily declining over the past few months. I'm noticing less and less participation is happening in each post with only 2 or three post on the front page getting much conversation going and they are usually over some controversy.
There are a number of reasons why this is happening. Firstly, one of the major reasons is Gregory Maxwell and his foot soldiers. He is outsmarting everyone here because the reality is, he is smarter than most people here. Here is what some of their main tactics are though. If you know them and take my advice it may help the situation;
Greg and his supporters accuse his opponents of all the things that he and his side do. This is highly effective, as to a casual observer it makes it very difficult to differentiate who is the one that is actually causing the problem. Most observers will simply think both groups are as bad as each other. It is not unlike the situation in sci-fi movies where there is an alien (or something similar) that transforms into a replica of someone and both are standing side-by-side calling the other the "phony" and only upon close inspection you are able to see which is the actual "phony". This is very difficult to defend against.
A second tactic they commonly use is to make some kind of prophecy based on little to no evidence, then they will work towards making that prophecy come true by any means necessary.
 
Some examples; btc has been under social attack from day one. It is a similar social attack that has been going on (and has succeeded) on bitcoin. There is a slightly different tactic being used on btc though.
On bitcoin they had the explicit support of theymos which meant that when the social attack started last year, anyone who went against it (i.e. pretty much everyone in the sub) theymos would simply ban them until the voice of the attackers outweighed or balanced the voice of the supporters. bitcoin being the main sub for bitcoin communication meant it is usually the first place new users become part of the bitcoin community. What they then get is a completely alternative view of bitcoin than the one most of us got any time before summer 2015. This was then taken to be the status quo by the new users and therefore was the view that they held. This meant that the sub started to fill with these new users who support the arguments given by the attackers. It worked, and if you go read the comments in bitcoin now you can see that it is a completely different community than at any time before summer 2015.
A trip down memory lane
The social attack on btc is different than the one on bitcoin in that they don't have the explicit support of the top mod here (memorydealers). This makes their task more difficult as they can't simply have the view they want to be removed eradicated by banning anyone who states those views. It is worth noting that originally they did try to make this tactic possible by getting btcdrak on the list of mods. He did this by socially engineering memorydealers through social media. It was effective until the community here made enough of a fuss to have him removed. Instead their backup plan is now to make this place the "cesspool" they are proclaiming it to be (remember I said one of their tactics is to make prophecies come true). They do this by having a team of people posting in here day in day out stirring the pot and causing messy arguments. Over the last month or so they have been upping the ante and Greg himself has been coming here to create as much controversy as possible. Specifically he is trying to draw the devs of Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited out by attacking them both personally and professionally. He and his foot soldiers are purposely trying to turn btc into a shithole to push people away from the sub, and it's working. You can see posts here all the time from valuable members of the community saying they no longer want to be a part of the community any more. The stats back it up as well. Large numbers of the community are moving into other cryptocurrencies or simply giving up on cryptocurrency all together.
They are winning.
 
There only three ways to defend against this kind of attack.
  1. Do not engage with these people. Their effectiveness comes from how big their platform is. The more you engage with them the bigger their voice is. I understand the argument that bad/false arguments should be corrected, but this is not effective. It takes 1000 times more effort to counter bullshit than it does to counter the truth. You will never win this way (unfortunately). If you feel what they are saying does not have value or has negative value simply downvote and discuss with other people in the thread. That is not to say that people should not debate with genuine people, but there are specific users who ARE NOT GENUINE. They are not here for genuine debate.
  2. memorydealers you need to remove the trolls . There are some here that would call it censorship but you are not banning an idea. You are banning the shit stirring that goes on here on a daily basis. What these attackers want most is a platform. It's the reason why they spend so much time complaining about the censorship here but spend zero time complaining about the censorship in bitcoin. They don't actually care about about censorship. They care about socially attacking the community and to be able to do that their accounts need to be able to post here. I am sure there will be some amount of community backlash but at this point what do you have to lose? The community here is dying anyway.
  3. We need to fork bitcoin and stop debating whether a block size increase should happen or not. The debate has happened. No compromise was made by Core and they have decided they are going to do what they want to do and nothing anyone else is going to say is going to stop them. Miners have shown almost 100% support in bitcoin core and there is absolutely zero indication that this will change. If anything, their support seems to be growing. We need a divorce and one that happens as cleanly as possible. A clean divorce is far better for everyone than an unhappy marriage. That means we have to simply stop engaging with core and hoping that things will change. Support for a fork needs to increase and all effort needs to go into making it successful. This is the ONLY way users are going to be given a voice. We need support from the teams of Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited. All of these teams (including the one that is gathering around the btcforks project) supports a multi-client and free-choice development environment and all support on-chain scaling. If we work together we will have a much much higher likelihood of success.
These are the users that I believe to be attacking both btc and bitcoin (and I am certain there more):
 
No one has to take my advice and you are welcome to call this all bullshit but I decided to put in all the effort I can over the next months in a last ditch effort to try and save bitcoin, and that includes trying to save the community here. I'd like to end this with a quote from the movie Interstellar;
 
"We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars, now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt."
 
EDIT: There is a perfect example HERE in this thread of what I am talking about.
Lejitz stirs shit up. Then mufftrader response which encourages Lejitz to fling twice as much shit.
EDIT: It seems to be working. The trolls are now resorting to simply talking to themselves in this thread.
 
EDIT: I should add that if you want to take part in the btcforks project you can join our sub at btcfork or you can join our slack at btcforks.signup.team.
submitted by singularity87 to btc [link] [comments]

Block size limit debate history lesson

Pre 2013
Bitcoin users and developers have near universal agreement that the block size limit is a temporary feature must be raised and/or removed. Preparing for this hard fork is one of lead developer Gavin's top priorities.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE has always been planned to increase as needed. That limitation should be ignored. theymos 17:15, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
What Theymos said. Increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE will be done when "lightweight, header-only" client mode is done. Until then, block size has to be kept under control.--Gavin Andresen 00:19, 5 March 2011 (GMT)
However development priorities are not very unified, as noted by one observer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013.msg1390298#msg1390298
When I joined this forum I was completely wrong calling the Bitcoin core development team "Bitcoin bunker". Now that I understand the situation better I know that there's no single bunker. There are numerous one-or-two-person cubbyholes that may occasionally form the aliances to shoot at the occupant of another cubbyhole. The situation conforms better to the distributed paradigm inherent in the design of Bitcoin.
2013
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, arguments begin to erupt regarding the desirability of increasing the block size limit.
Many of the proponents in favor of making the block size limit permanent are investors in competing currencies/payment systems and this fact was not lost on observers of the era and can easily be confirmed by viewing the profiles of the participants:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0;all
In May of 2013, Peter Todd funds the production of a propaganda video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
None of the claims in this video are true, but it is effective in creating drama. Tensions rise and development work grinds nearly to a halt due to infighting.
BTC market share is 95%.
In December, Gregory Maxwell begins to revive the idea of sidechains along with Adam Back, TheBlueMatt, and other individuals who will go on to form Blockstream.
They begin promoting sidechains as an alternative to Bitcoin scaling.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140226095319/http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txt
2014
April 7: Unwilling to deal with the drama any further, Gavin steps down as lead developer. At the time the BTC market share is 90%.
Sidechain discussion is well underway, yet a few people still manage to speak up to point out that sidechains should not be treated as an alternative to scaling Bitcoin. You may notice some familiar posters in these threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=566704.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0;all
In October, Blockstream.com publishes their sidechain whitepaper:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831527.0;all
The response is underwhelming.
On November 17, Blockstream announces the securing of $21 million in seed funding.
BTC market share is 91%.
2015
On June 22, Gavin Andresen proposes BIP101 to increase the block size limit as the conclusion of his work performed since stepping down as lead developer.
On August 6, Mike Hearn announces BitcoinXT, a full node implementation that includes BIP101.
Many Blockstream employees, including Adam Back, call this effort a "coup", a claim that can not be made without admitting they believe themselves to be the legitimate rulers of Bitcoin.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
In October, Blockstream employee Pieter Wuille proposes "Segregated Witness":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210235.0
Post-2015
This is the time period most Bitcoin users are familiar with, which really only represents the tail end of a five year long fight to prevent the planned block size limit increase.
The BTC market share has been steadily dropping since the anti-scaling propaganda began in late 2012/early 2013.
It currently stands at 66%.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
submitted by ABlockInTheChain to btc [link] [comments]

Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been *suspended* (from *all* subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?

Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today.
He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos.
But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R.
This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box).
Questions:
  • What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
  • What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
  • Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
  • Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
  • Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community.
Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
Bitcoin Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal ‘Ledger’ Launches
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-peer-reviewed-academic-journal-ledger-launches/
Blocksize as an Emergent Phenonomen
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3s5507/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
Peter R's presentation is really awesome and much needed analysis of the market for blockspace and blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3me634/peter_rs_presentation_is_really_awesome_and_much/
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xaexf/in_case_anyone_missed_it_peter_r_hit_the_nail_on/
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation [NEW ANIMATED GIF]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nufe7/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
Miners are commodity producers - Peter__R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l3g4f/miners_are_commodity_producers_peter_
Fees and Fee Markets
“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit” — new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3mddr4/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
An illustration of how fee revenue leads to improved network security in the absence of a block size limit.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3qana4/an_illustration_of_how_fee_revenue_leads_to/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Networks and Scaling
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
Market cap vs. daily transaction volume: is it reasonable to expect the market cap to continue to grow if there is no room for more transactions?
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nvkn3/market_cap_vs_daily_transaction_volume_is_it/
In my opinion the most important part of Scaling Bitcoin! (Peter R)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l5uh4/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l5up3/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uvaqn/visualizing_bip101_a_payment_network_for_planet/
A Payment Network for Planet Earth: Visualizing Gavin Andresen's blocksize-limit increase
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/
Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3thu1n/is_bitcoins_block_size_empirically_different_o
New blocksize BIP: User Configurable Maximum Block Size
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/
A Block Size Limit Was Never Part Of Satoshi’s Plan : Draft proposal to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/
Truth-table for the question "Will my node follow the longest chain?"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3i5pk4/truthtable_for_the_question_will_my_node_follow/
Peter R: "In the end, I believe the production quota would fail." #ScalingBitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3koghf/peter_r_in_the_end_i_believe_the_production_quota/
Decentralized Nodes, Mining and Development
Centralization in Bitcoin: Nodes, Mining, Development
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n3z9b/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_development/
Deprecating Bitcoin Core: Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nhq9t/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? - Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ijuw3/what_is_wrong_with_the_goal_of_decentralizing/
Potentially Unlimited, "Fractal-Like" Scaling for Bitcoin: Peter__R's "Subchains" proposal
"Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero-Confirmation Security With Subchains" — new research paper on 'weak blocks' explains
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/
A Visual Explanation of Subchains -- an application of weak blocks to secure zero-confirmation transactions and massively scale Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y76du/a_visual_explanation_of_subchains_an_application/
New Directions in Bitcoin Development
Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xn110/its_because_most_of_them_are_not_bitcoin/
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpufy/it_is_time_to_usher_in_a_new_phase_of_bitcoin/
Peter__R on RBF
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
Peter__R on Mt. Gox
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/
Censorship and Attacks by Core / Blockstream / Theymos / Reddit Admins against Peter__R
Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /bitcoin for "trolling"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uy3ea/peter_rs_infographic_showing_the_bip_101_growth/
"Scaling Bitcoin" rejected Peter R's proposal
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3takbscaling_bitcoin_rejected_peter_rs_proposal/
After censoring Mike and Gavin, BlockStream makes its first move to silence Peter R on bitcoin-dev like they did on /bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3syb0z/after_censoring_mike_and_gavin_blockstream_makes/
Looks like the censors in /bitcoin are at it again: Peter_R post taken down within minutes
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3tvb3b/looks_like_the_censors_in_rbitcoin_are_at_it/
I've been banned for vote brigading for the animated GIF that visualized the possible future deprecation of Bitcoin Core.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nizet/ive_been_banned_for_vote_brigading_for_the/
An example of moderator subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules at /bitcoin: animated pie chart visualizing the deprecation of Bitcoin Core
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3osthv/an_example_of_moderator_subjectivity_in_the/
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybhdy/my_response_to_pieter_wuille_on_the_devlist_has/
To those who are interested in judging whether Peter R's paper merits inclusion in the blockchain scaling conference, here it is:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3td6b9/to_those_who_are_interested_in_judging_whethe
The real reason Peter_R talk was refused (from his previous presentation) (xpost from /btc)
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uwpvh/the_real_reason_peter_r_talk_was_refused_from_his/
[CENSORED] The Morning After the Moderation Mistake: Thoughts on Consensus and the Longest Chain
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8o50/censored_the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake/
Core / Blockstream cheerleader eragmus gloating over Peter__R's account getting suspended from Reddit (ie, from all subreddits) - by some Reddit admin(s)
[PSA] Uber Troll Extraordinaire, Peter__R, has been permanently suspended by Reddit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/407j77/psa_uber_troll_extraordinaire_upeter_r_has_been/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: Bitcoin top posts from 2017-10-15 to 2018-10-14 18:01 PDT

Period: 364.20 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 265073
Rate (per day) 2.75 722.33
Unique Redditors 812 63529
Combined Score 3662639 3145604

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 74796 points, 2 submissions: Tricky_Troll
    1. The last 3 months in 47 seconds. (48474 points, 790 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Doesn't Give a Fuck. (26322 points, 1505 comments)
  2. 50907 points, 3 submissions: LeeWallis
    1. It's official! 1 Bitcoin = $10,000 USD (48506 points, 4587 comments)
    2. It's official! 1 Bitcoin = $10,000 USD (again) (1233 points, 123 comments)
    3. Bitcoin just reached $7,000 USD on GDAX! (1168 points, 359 comments)
  3. 49298 points, 2 submissions: chronic_nervosa
    1. Working Hard or Hardly Working? (25721 points, 326 comments)
    2. Investing Tips from a Pro (23577 points, 598 comments)
  4. 44144 points, 2 submissions: wolfwolfz
    1. It's over 9000!!! (42429 points, 3170 comments)
    2. Mtgox caused 2013 and 2018 crash (1715 points, 425 comments)
  5. 42048 points, 1 submission: buttockpain
    1. Everyone who's trading BTC right now (42048 points, 804 comments)
  6. 41614 points, 3 submissions: PineappleFund
    1. I'm donating 5057 BTC to charitable causes! Introducing The Pineapple Fund (20020 points, 2927 comments)
    2. Farewell from the Pineapple Fund (10944 points, 610 comments)
    3. 🍍 $4mil will fund MDMA trials for PTSD; marked 'Breakthrough Therapy' by FDA. Pineapple Fund is matching MAPS donations 1:1. Reddit, let's make history by crowdfunding an incredible treatment for PTSD, in bitcoin! (10650 points, 558 comments)
  7. 41269 points, 4 submissions: Xtreme110
    1. Bitcoin.. The King (28328 points, 1178 comments)
    2. So here's what actually happened Today. (8542 points, 301 comments)
    3. So Yeah This Happened .. (2330 points, 215 comments)
    4. Did someone Asked for Support levels... (2069 points, 224 comments)
  8. 29323 points, 1 submission: KINNAHZ
    1. I hope James is doing well (29323 points, 1242 comments)
  9. 29123 points, 1 submission: trance929
    1. Weeeeeeee! (29123 points, 1530 comments)
  10. 28063 points, 1 submission: benjaminikuta
    1. Nothing can increase by that much and still be a good investment. (28063 points, 1318 comments)
  11. 27600 points, 5 submissions: Suberg
    1. Rabobank Fined $369M for Money Laundering After Calling Bitcoin a Risk for Money Laundering (14264 points, 312 comments)
    2. Ellen DeGeneres Just Introduced Bitcoin to Her 3 Million US Viewers (7893 points, 619 comments)
    3. Evidence Emerges of CNBC Collusion with Roger Ver, BCash (2665 points, 526 comments)
    4. Reminder: Encrypt and store your bitcoin offline - U.S. Congress Quietly Passes CLOUD Act to Increase Gov't Access to Online Info (1688 points, 277 comments)
    5. 600+ Bitcoin Users Seek Lawsuit Against Bitcoin.com & CEO Roger Ver for Fraud (1090 points, 298 comments)
  12. 26949 points, 1 submission: Kittstar123
    1. This is why I want bitcoin to hit $10,000 (26949 points, 918 comments)
  13. 24897 points, 2 submissions: sunilross
    1. What he would be wishing now? 😂 (22418 points, 954 comments)
    2. Just a few months ago Bitcoin going to $10,000 was a huge celebration Now Bitcoin is at $10,000 and its like the end of the world. What an irony!! (2479 points, 1016 comments)
  14. 24555 points, 8 submissions: TheGreatMuffin
    1. This Bitcoin chart is insane! Oh, wait… that’s actually a chart of US dollar money printing. (8202 points, 1165 comments)
    2. Coinbase Hit With Class Action Claiming Insiders Benefited From 'Bitcoin Cash' Launch (5370 points, 493 comments)
    3. "Anonymous bitcoin donor rains $56 million on stunned nonprofits" (story about The Pinapple Fund) (3331 points, 199 comments)
    4. Odds of winning Powerball (Lottery) vs guessing one bitcoin private key (by @Coinguybri) (2008 points, 260 comments)
    5. Andreas Antonopoulos' depiction of the day he became aware of the donations that made him a millionaire (1878 points, 214 comments)
    6. McAfee doubles down on his promise: "I now predict Bitcoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong." (1387 points, 329 comments)
    7. Federal courts now accepting cryptocurrency for bail (1288 points, 62 comments)
    8. The first Stable version of BTCPay is out: BTCPayServer 1.0.1.1 and NBXplorer 1.0.1.3. Next stable version will include Lightning Network. (by Nicolas Dorier) (1091 points, 103 comments)
  15. 23962 points, 6 submissions: Mobilenewsflash
    1. Difference between New and Experienced Trader (11900 points, 181 comments)
    2. Did you know? I didn't. (4127 points, 294 comments)
    3. Altcoin Master (3555 points, 145 comments)
    4. All we need is this kind of bull run! (2125 points, 122 comments)
    5. Bitcoin isn't the bubble, it's the pin (1199 points, 310 comments)
    6. Simple answer, the right one (1056 points, 230 comments)
  16. 23651 points, 3 submissions: UniqueUsername642
    1. Cheers! (17238 points, 510 comments)
    2. This is Cryptocurrency (5072 points, 371 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Investors be like (1341 points, 335 comments)
  17. 23082 points, 1 submission: jrs0080
    1. Whoever put this up deserves a medal (23082 points, 319 comments)
  18. 23066 points, 1 submission: vindico_silenti
    1. BTC dropping due to lack of quality 11k memes. Closest support line is at 9k Vegeta memes. (23066 points, 820 comments)
  19. 22856 points, 1 submission: danielwilson666
    1. Bitcoin today (22856 points, 1940 comments)
  20. 22657 points, 1 submission: byte_coder
    1. 2018: lets run for office (22657 points, 991 comments)
  21. 22193 points, 1 submission: Hync
    1. Lily Allen turned down 200K in Bitcoins for a gig in 2009 which is worth $1,426,199,000 as of this writing (22193 points, 1293 comments)
  22. 21505 points, 1 submission: paperraincoat
    1. Eleven! (21505 points, 575 comments)
  23. 21044 points, 1 submission: SotakuKun
    1. How To Invest In Bitcoin (21044 points, 634 comments)
  24. 20817 points, 1 submission: MichKOG
    1. Almost everyone now is an Investor (20817 points, 554 comments)
  25. 20647 points, 10 submissions: Bastiat
    1. Day 2: I will repost this guide daily until available solutions like Segwit & order batching are adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. You can help. Take action today (5145 points, 766 comments)
    2. Pierre Rochard: "Until your altcoin successfully defeats a coordinated attack like NYA/S2X, with 90% of the hashrate and major businesses trying to force a hard fork, its immutability is untested and its monetary policy is suspect. Bitcoin has earned its keep, its immutability is beyond question" (2249 points, 345 comments)
    3. Day 9: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit, order batching, and Lightning payment channels are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Have you done your part? (2070 points, 190 comments)
    4. Day 5: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. User demand from this community can help lead to some big changes. Have you joined the /Bitcoin SegWit effort? (2017 points, 268 comments)
    5. Day 7: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Do you want low tx fees, because this is how you get low tx fees (1959 points, 166 comments)
    6. Day 3: I will repost this guide daily until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. ARE YOU PART OF THE SOLUTION? News: Unconfirmed TX's @ 274K, more exchanges adding SegWit, Core prioritizes SegWit GUI (1758 points, 220 comments)
    7. Coinbase's short-sighted money grab is @Gemini.com's gain. Trust is the number one concern for new adopters and nobody can trust CONBASE after today (1689 points, 383 comments)
    8. Day 8: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit, order batching, and Lightning payment channels are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. BTC Core SegWit GUI coming May 1, Coinbase incompetence exposed, more exchanges deploy SegWit (1454 points, 177 comments)
    9. Day 6: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Refer a friend to SegWit today. There's no $10 referral offer, but you'll both get lower fees and help strengthen the BTC protocol (1193 points, 99 comments)
    10. If every Bitcoin tx was a SegWit tx today, we'd have 8,000 tx blocks & the tx backlog would disappear. Tx fees would be almost non-existent once again. THE NEXT BITCOIN TX YOU MAKE, MAKE IT A SEGWIT TX. DOWNLOAD A SEGWIT COMPATIBLE WALLET AND OPEN A SEGWIT COMPATIBLE EXCHANGE ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW (1113 points, 228 comments)
  26. 20159 points, 1 submission: swahlgren
    1. Danish Bitcoin billionaire new sponsor of professional Danish ice hockey team. Stadium to be renamed "Bitcoin Arena" and get a huge Bitcoin logo in the middle of the ice! (20159 points, 1018 comments)
  27. 20119 points, 4 submissions: bitchari
    1. Value is always in the eyes of the beholder (10999 points, 542 comments)
    2. We did it!! BTC ✌️ (4335 points, 333 comments)
    3. Uncomfortable truths!! (3228 points, 451 comments)
    4. "rat poison" returns!! (1557 points, 234 comments)
  28. 19767 points, 1 submission: Active2017
    1. $7,900+!! (am i doing this right?) (19767 points, 493 comments)
  29. 18709 points, 1 submission: JonathanMauri
    1. Sold some bitcoin to buy my new best bud 🤗 (18709 points, 1752 comments)
  30. 17979 points, 1 submission: crlxzzz
    1. Localbitcoins.com is illegally holding my 9.3 bitcoin on "escrow" since may 2015 (17979 points, 802 comments)
  31. 17806 points, 6 submissions: domelane
    1. FORBES: "South Korea Is Not Banning Bitcoin Trade, Financial Regulators Clarify". (8349 points, 245 comments)
    2. Banks vs Bitcoin (2370 points, 311 comments)
    3. Arizona Senate Votes to Accept Tax Payments in Bitcoin (2363 points, 134 comments)
    4. Visa confirms Coinbase wasn’t at fault for overcharging users (1854 points, 92 comments)
    5. Finally! Coinbase: "Our engineering team has finished testing of SegWit for Bitcoin on Coinbase. We will be starting a phased launch to customers over the next few days and are targeting a 100% launch to all customers by mid next week". (1501 points, 112 comments)
    6. For all the newbies posting: "Bitcoin will crash on Monday! Wall Street is buying to short it to hell!", watch Andreas (Member of the Oversight Board of the CME Futures) to calm your tits. (1369 points, 322 comments)
  32. 17749 points, 2 submissions: BluntLord
    1. possibly the worst thing about this crash... (11631 points, 2540 comments)
    2. Reasons why these price increases are NOT a good thing. no FUD, all facts. (6118 points, 394 comments)
  33. 17228 points, 1 submission: ma_Name_Is_Jefffff
    1. To the new guys, let's see how tough you really are (17228 points, 1371 comments)
  34. 17117 points, 4 submissions: ayanamirs
    1. Don't be this guy (11774 points, 728 comments)
    2. Satoshi Nakamoto about bitcoin.com (2337 points, 313 comments)
    3. SegWit transactions are now 30.71%! (1892 points, 198 comments)
    4. SegWit, Lightning Network, and Schnorr are way more important than the current price. (1114 points, 166 comments)
  35. 16889 points, 1 submission: bitnext
    1. There are 180 different scenarios where bitcoin go. If any one thing happens remember me i am the first one to predict this (16889 points, 452 comments)
  36. 16350 points, 1 submission: YetAnotherCryptoFan
    1. Warren Buffet: (16350 points, 990 comments)
  37. 16128 points, 1 submission: lewjc
    1. Quick analysis of the markets this month (16128 points, 349 comments)
  38. 15721 points, 1 submission: bitiegg
    1. Guys... I'm out... (15721 points, 814 comments)
  39. 15216 points, 1 submission: CryptoCurrencyFreak
    1. The Free Software Foundation has received a 91.45 Bitcoin donation from the Pineapple Fund. Valued at $1 Million USD. (15216 points, 423 comments)
  40. 15144 points, 4 submissions: StoneHammers
    1. exceedingly efficient (7954 points, 205 comments)
    2. Behold my 20 Bitcoin lawnmower bought mid 2012 (4214 points, 289 comments)
    3. This could change everything (1900 points, 68 comments)
    4. Bitcoin today (1076 points, 114 comments)
  41. 14847 points, 1 submission: cryptograffiti
    1. Upvote to get this to the top search result for "Bitcoin CEO." (14847 points, 265 comments)
  42. 14823 points, 6 submissions: Bitzone4
    1. Mood Currently. (6084 points, 448 comments)
    2. Hodlers currently (2882 points, 314 comments)
    3. Lets goooo yes bitcoin (2362 points, 280 comments)
    4. Holders Power (1444 points, 160 comments)
    5. Meanwhile when there's blood in the street. (1032 points, 106 comments)
    6. Who else took the discount opportunity? (1019 points, 209 comments)
  43. 14808 points, 1 submission: ltc-
    1. What a time to be alive! (14808 points, 467 comments)
  44. 14807 points, 1 submission: nrckprth
    1. When you are trying to buy the dip (14807 points, 660 comments)
  45. 14761 points, 2 submissions: zackwong97
    1. Quick grab the offer! (12316 points, 835 comments)
    2. 100 years has past and a new currency was discovered. I believe cryptocurrency can save the world. (2445 points, 221 comments)
  46. 14624 points, 1 submission: lawmaster99
    1. Microsoft joins Steam and stops accepting Bitcoin payments (14624 points, 2163 comments)
  47. 14236 points, 1 submission: kixxaxxas
    1. Yeah! Bitcoin! (14236 points, 496 comments)
  48. 13950 points, 1 submission: EaFaer
    1. Us Senate Bill S.1241 to criminalize concealed ownership of Bitcoin (13950 points, 1621 comments)
  49. 13929 points, 7 submissions: finalhedge
    1. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak: “Bitcoin is mathematical. I am a mathematician. There are only 21 million. It is more legitimate than other systems” (3984 points, 487 comments)
    2. Mum knows best (2474 points, 149 comments)
    3. Wall Street Journal has gone from worrying that Bitcoin is a bubble that will crash, to worrying that it's not (2432 points, 440 comments)
    4. Hedge Fund Manager Mark Yusko: "Only gamble was whether Bitcoin would make if from $0 to $100-- that was the real miracle. Going from $4,000 to $400,000 is easy" (1755 points, 272 comments)
    5. Those who scoffed at the thought of $1,000 BTC are scoffing at $10,000 BTC and will scoff at $100,000 BTC (1163 points, 342 comments)
    6. Barry Silbert could make Bitcoin soar to $7,000+ & his own Assets Under Management to $1.5B+ with 1 tweet: call off SegWit2X & uncertainty will be out of the market. (1074 points, 189 comments)
    7. Google gets it. (1047 points, 46 comments)
  50. 13912 points, 4 submissions: readish
    1. Bitcoin is going to do to banks what email did the post office and Amazon did to retail. (7194 points, 1137 comments)
    2. ... hey, Coinbase... (3293 points, 492 comments)
    3. Yes, please! (2342 points, 325 comments)
    4. Calling Bitcoin Cash the "real" Bitcoin is straightforward fraud, and will financially wreck many new investors entering the ecosystem by buying a fake coin. So, exposing frauds is a nice thing to do for other people to prevent them from falling for those scams. (1083 points, 400 comments)
  51. 13876 points, 1 submission: theymos
    1. Don't invest recklessly (13876 points, 1972 comments)
  52. 13839 points, 1 submission: virtualwoman0
    1. Thank you Coinbase!! For taking sooo long to validate my identity, my account, and my bank transfers...your endless delays prevented me from investing in the crypto market before the crash! (13839 points, 556 comments)
  53. 13817 points, 2 submissions: xcryptogurux
    1. Don't be like Greg (9887 points, 370 comments)
    2. Lesson - History of Bitcoin crashes (3930 points, 1676 comments)
  54. 13546 points, 2 submissions: D3M0Sthenes
    1. Can you feel the Pumpening? (12469 points, 436 comments)
    2. There's always that guy at the party (1077 points, 61 comments)
  55. 13507 points, 2 submissions: pc_to_mac_user
    1. Keeping Coinbase on their toes - Robinhood adds no-fee crypto trading! (12040 points, 909 comments)
    2. Coinbase CEO: In the next 3–5 years, you will see countries going into economic crisis and could see the organic adoption of cryptocurrencies (1467 points, 363 comments)
  56. 13489 points, 3 submissions: Godfreee
    1. It was a sad day when we had to retire this meme from our wall after 3.5 years. Next one will have an added zero! (10196 points, 237 comments)
    2. Back in 2013, a single subway sandwich shop accepting Bitcoin got airtime on CNBC, and we were all jumping for joy. Nowadays we get full TV features about Bitcoin and people are like " yawn, could be better". (2020 points, 110 comments)
    3. This magazine cover came out exactly 30 years ago - same day Bitcoin was released 9 years ago. Was Satoshi that meta? 2018 is gonna be a helluva ride. (1273 points, 301 comments)
  57. 13293 points, 2 submissions: ccjunkiemonkey
    1. Sixty free lectures from Princeton on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Total time 13hr 20min. Links in post. (12259 points, 206 comments)
    2. Don't panic, just learn. Sixty free lectures from Princeton on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Total time 13hr 20min. Links in post. (1034 points, 97 comments)
  58. 12875 points, 1 submission: DebtFreeMFers
    1. Guys, I am out (12875 points, 1572 comments)
  59. 12651 points, 1 submission: lriccardo
    1. I spent 3 months building one of the best apps to track cryptocurrencies. Exchanges API sync, wallet tracking and many other features. I am not 16 but I invested a lot of time into this, can I get some attention anyway or am I going to get randomly downvoted as always? The app is also free. (12651 points, 1563 comments)
  60. 12558 points, 3 submissions: agent9747
    1. How to transfer Bitcoin from Coinbase for free! (10322 points, 809 comments)
    2. Stop hating on Coinbase (1210 points, 563 comments)
    3. My Cryptocurrency app is starting to look good :D It will be available soon-ish (1026 points, 193 comments)
  61. 12489 points, 1 submission: tune_down
    1. Insider tip: BTC is going to skyrocket in the next 48 hours (12489 points, 741 comments)
  62. 12328 points, 1 submission: i_mash_shoryuken
    1. This month in Bitcoin. (12328 points, 371 comments)
  63. 12069 points, 1 submission: Ev1lyv35
    1. This hurts me in a different level. (12069 points, 593 comments)
  64. 11898 points, 4 submissions: tinaclark90
    1. I've made some free Bitcoin Icons (4747 points, 246 comments)
    2. Thought I might share this in here. No way Bitcoin is going to survive folks... (4657 points, 824 comments)
    3. New Free Bitcoin Icons (1285 points, 71 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Icons (100% Free) (1209 points, 64 comments)
  65. 11618 points, 1 submission: timbroddin
    1. 9 years ago block 0 was mined. Happy birthday Bitcoin! (11618 points, 455 comments)
  66. 11429 points, 1 submission: tomerux
    1. We waited for that... (11429 points, 186 comments)
  67. 11381 points, 1 submission: sykhlo
    1. And that's why we need limited supply. (11381 points, 803 comments)
  68. 11357 points, 2 submissions: sbrdx
    1. Bitcoiners be like 😂 (9418 points, 413 comments)
    2. When you HODL through a bear market (1939 points, 108 comments)
  69. 11339 points, 1 submission: CosmosKing98
    1. This is governments trying to regulate bitcoin. (11339 points, 549 comments)
  70. 11198 points, 1 submission: Ryamgram
    1. <---- Number of Hodlers with Strong Hands (11198 points, 1127 comments)
  71. 11079 points, 2 submissions: ForeverDutch92
    1. Dutch national newspaper urges people to sell all their Bitcoins as it undermines the government, could destabilise the economy and reduces the power of central banks. Sounds like a reason to buy to me 🤔 (9843 points, 986 comments)
    2. We really need to start pushing for SegWit support. Stop waiting for the Lightning Network to fix everything. (1236 points, 318 comments)
  72. 11063 points, 5 submissions: amorpisseur
    1. South Korean gov't "shocked" at the number of citizens requesting the removal of Justice Minister and Finance Minister for market manipulation (4015 points, 236 comments)
    2. BREAKING: TD Ameritrade to allow bitcoin futures trading Monday (2571 points, 234 comments)
    3. "Microsoft and Starbucks signed on to use the new platform for payments and accept BTC" (2190 points, 330 comments)
    4. We found who's spamming the mempool (1162 points, 207 comments)
    5. Lightning Network progress: 72 out of 75 tests pass! (1125 points, 562 comments)
  73. 11010 points, 1 submission: Sam767679
    1. Legendary story by John McAfee (11010 points, 472 comments)
  74. 10959 points, 1 submission: InteractiveLedger
    1. This is NOT OK. Upvote for visibility (10959 points, 1505 comments)
  75. 10750 points, 1 submission: singularityissonear
    1. Time to invest! (10750 points, 329 comments)
  76. 10749 points, 1 submission: broscientologist
    1. I made a decision tree for everyone panic selling. (10749 points, 896 comments)
  77. 10688 points, 1 submission: K_owar_D
    1. They never told me that buying the lambo would be the easy part... (10688 points, 495 comments)
  78. 10626 points, 1 submission: bigbenxx
    1. Checking the Bitcoin price at work: (10626 points, 328 comments)
  79. 10419 points, 1 submission: EMC2_trooper
    1. I see it every day. (10419 points, 289 comments)
  80. 10330 points, 1 submission: LAH92
    1. The latecomer’s BTC journey (10330 points, 271 comments)
  81. 10324 points, 1 submission: old-man-blorp
    1. It would be so easy then (10324 points, 222 comments)
  82. 10187 points, 1 submission: mrtambourineman89
    1. BTC Grandpa already doubled his profit. (10187 points, 597 comments)
  83. 10027 points, 2 submissions: David3692
    1. Looking at the price when you invested only what you can afford to lose (7560 points, 744 comments)
    2. Trying to explain to the wife why we should buy more now (2467 points, 260 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. viper2097 (11931 points, 7 comments)
  2. TarAldarion (6814 points, 3 comments)
  3. gonzobon (6174 points, 95 comments)
  4. cxr303 (5782 points, 29 comments)
  5. Annu_Naki (5537 points, 1 comment)
  6. nightspy1309 (5501 points, 1 comment)
  7. stevoli (5476 points, 4 comments)
  8. PineappleFund (5450 points, 45 comments)
  9. gregschoen (5426 points, 21 comments)
  10. gkikoria (5353 points, 1 comment)
  11. StarfighterF104gv2 (5320 points, 2 comments)
  12. devonthed00d (5228 points, 47 comments)
  13. typtyphus (5186 points, 174 comments)
  14. LeeWallis (4989 points, 19 comments)
  15. Graphesium (4956 points, 1 comment)
  16. SirBastian (4640 points, 2 comments)
  17. zomgitsduke (4617 points, 176 comments)
  18. bluethunder1985 (4586 points, 133 comments)
  19. anumoshsad (4494 points, 3 comments)
  20. MagicalTux (4480 points, 111 comments)
  21. Mateo113 (4456 points, 3 comments)
  22. dolan_trumpf (4398 points, 3 comments)
  23. domelane (4157 points, 44 comments)
  24. walloon5 (4143 points, 307 comments)
  25. prelsidente (4088 points, 91 comments)
  26. gozaamaya (4029 points, 5 comments)
  27. maaku7 (3976 points, 63 comments)
  28. basmith7 (3950 points, 1 comment)
  29. Agastopia (3869 points, 6 comments)
  30. toxonaut (3756 points, 1 comment)
  31. Speaking-of-segues (3707 points, 117 comments)
  32. PuckFoloniex (3701 points, 37 comments)
  33. isoldmywifeonEbay (3676 points, 100 comments)
  34. mpbh (3558 points, 14 comments)
  35. tranceology3 (3513 points, 252 comments)
  36. Opfailicon (3493 points, 2 comments)
  37. hallizh (3448 points, 3 comments)
  38. 1Bitcoinco (3446 points, 22 comments)
  39. overtoke (3446 points, 14 comments)
  40. coinx-ltc (3401 points, 3 comments)
  41. Shmeh-Shmeh (3365 points, 3 comments)
  42. SternerCrow (3301 points, 22 comments)
  43. Active2017 (3263 points, 35 comments)
  44. mr_li_jr (3204 points, 29 comments)
  45. abolishpmo (3050 points, 19 comments)
  46. Redcrux (3042 points, 10 comments)
  47. lucky_rabbit_foot (3035 points, 41 comments)
  48. FDisk80 (3027 points, 10 comments)
  49. TheGreatMuffin (3009 points, 189 comments)
  50. HazyPeanut (3000 points, 3 comments)
  51. LegendsRoom (2992 points, 58 comments)
  52. 2Panik (2964 points, 5 comments)
  53. fellesh (2952 points, 3 comments)
  54. GenghisKhanSpermShot (2933 points, 171 comments)
  55. suninabox (2929 points, 466 comments)
  56. BlatantConservative (2896 points, 28 comments)
  57. tyrael98 (2891 points, 2 comments)
  58. mbrochh (2890 points, 100 comments)
  59. hungry4donutz (2866 points, 3 comments)
  60. WhoNeedsFacts (2809 points, 2 comments)
  61. greatbawlsofire (2792 points, 2 comments)
  62. pg3crypto (2791 points, 67 comments)
  63. Anon7216 (2791 points, 13 comments)
  64. togetherwem0m0 (2789 points, 64 comments)
  65. StrictlyOffTheRecord (2787 points, 4 comments)
  66. jonivaio (2777 points, 3 comments)
  67. BTCChampion (2752 points, 11 comments)
  68. yung_yas (2752 points, 3 comments)
  69. Chowdahhhh (2744 points, 4 comments)
  70. ADustedEwok (2723 points, 8 comments)
  71. CONTROLurKEYS (2715 points, 303 comments)
  72. strange_fate (2671 points, 36 comments)
  73. Downvotesohoy (2664 points, 6 comments)
  74. daghanerdonmez (2646 points, 5 comments)
  75. Saschb2b (2633 points, 1 comment)
  76. ebaley (2627 points, 1008 comments)
  77. catVdog123 (2619 points, 67 comments)
  78. ducksauce88 (2593 points, 280 comments)
  79. leroyyrogers (2593 points, 39 comments)
  80. PM_UR_UGLY_SWEATERS (2582 points, 9 comments)
  81. Cryptolution (2575 points, 310 comments)
  82. CryptoBobs (2530 points, 3 comments)
  83. Beckneard (2527 points, 39 comments)
  84. gbitg (2515 points, 85 comments)
  85. Kooriki (2511 points, 220 comments)
  86. ILikeToSayHi (2475 points, 24 comments)
  87. SPOKANARCHY (2472 points, 1 comment)
  88. letterboxmind (2469 points, 102 comments)
  89. lawmaster99 (2447 points, 30 comments)
  90. Reverend_James (2445 points, 74 comments)
  91. time_wasted504 (2439 points, 88 comments)
  92. TheBoyChris (2432 points, 4 comments)
  93. Frogolocalypse (2409 points, 518 comments)
  94. lriccardo (2388 points, 119 comments)
  95. __Vet__ (2372 points, 53 comments)
  96. ep1939 (2358 points, 133 comments)
  97. BBA935 (2339 points, 22 comments)
  98. Marcion_Sinope (2333 points, 210 comments)
  99. beamybeams (2323 points, 12 comments)
  100. Sawyeee (2309 points, 2 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. It's official! 1 Bitcoin = $10,000 USD by LeeWallis (48506 points, 4587 comments)
  2. The last 3 months in 47 seconds. by Tricky_Troll (48474 points, 790 comments)
  3. It's over 9000!!! by wolfwolfz (42429 points, 3170 comments)
  4. Everyone who's trading BTC right now by buttockpain (42048 points, 804 comments)
  5. I hope James is doing well by KINNAHZ (29323 points, 1242 comments)
  6. Weeeeeeee! by trance929 (29123 points, 1530 comments)
  7. Bitcoin.. The King by Xtreme110 (28328 points, 1178 comments)
  8. Nothing can increase by that much and still be a good investment. by benjaminikuta (28063 points, 1318 comments)
  9. This is why I want bitcoin to hit $10,000 by Kittstar123 (26949 points, 918 comments)
  10. Bitcoin Doesn't Give a Fuck. by Tricky_Troll (26322 points, 1505 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 11914 points: viper2097's comment in I hope James is doing well
  2. 9195 points: deleted's comment in possibly the worst thing about this crash...
  3. 6799 points: TarAldarion's comment in It's official! 1 Bitcoin = $10,000 USD
  4. 6589 points: deleted's comment in Nothing can increase by that much and still be a good investment.
  5. 6158 points: deleted's comment in My brother killed himself because of BTC
  6. 5537 points: Annu_Naki's comment in What he would be wishing now? 😂
  7. 5501 points: nightspy1309's comment in BTC dropping due to lack of quality 11k memes. Closest support line is at 9k Vegeta memes.
  8. 5410 points: stevoli's comment in Insider tip: BTC is going to skyrocket in the next 48 hours
  9. 5353 points: gkikoria's comment in Weeeeeeee!
  10. 5325 points: cxr303's comment in Guys, I am out
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

More fallacies and falsehoods being used that need to be cleared up if we want to have a clear debate (deleted in r/bitcoin)

This is a follow up thread on the thread I made about the misconception about individual fees needing to increase. I noticed in that thread there were a large number of very obvious logical fallacies being made. It seems relatively clear to me that these were/are being made in bad faith so I thought it would be useful to point them out here so that people can use this thread as a guide on how to respond to them in the future.
"In what world could we have 8GB blocks short term and Bitcoin remain even remotely decentralised"
No one is advocating for 8GB blocks in the short-term unless you consider 'in 22 years' to be short term. Planning for the future is a necessary requirement of a system that is to be used in the future. For example, Google having a schedule for server upgrades in the future does not mean the server upgrades are happening now.
On the one hand you say mass adoption any time now and show tables with massive tps rates, on the other hand you say 20 years. Which is it?
No one is saying mass adoption is right around the corner. If we are planning for success though (why wouldn't we be) then we must plan for some increase in adoption throughout time though. Adoption is not a binary process where bitcoin has either been adopted or it hasn't. It will occur gradually over time and often in smaller waves due to the nature of bitcoin.
8MB in two months is enough to massively cull nodes but not for any sort of mass adoption as plain transactions in the chain. You know this, right?
There are multiple fallacies here. Firstly 8MB is a limit and not the actual block size. For almost the entire 7 years of bitcoin's history, blocks have not been full (but have continued to fill up over time). If the block size limit is increased to 8MB in 2 months it does not mean that the that the block size will be 8MB. We can expect blocks to fill up to the limit over time just as they have done in the past history of bitcoin.
The second is that there is no evidence that 8MB blocks will "massively cull nodes" (when 8MB blocks are reached). If someone can describe what "massively cull" means, and provide specific evidence for that this will happen, it would go towards supporting this kind of statement.
'even with 8GB blocks, bitcoin will not be able to handle enough transactions for the whole world'
Just because bitcoin with blocks of a certain size cannot handle every possible conceivable transaction across the world does not mean it is not useful. Having larger blocks also does not mean that other solutions cannot also be implemented. Sidechains, higher layer services and off-chain services can all offer useful niche services (with tradeoffs) that bitcoin cannot. Just because bitcoin is not the be-all-and-end-all solution with bigger blocks does not mean that bigger blocks are not useful.
The mining subsidy is decreasing therefore we need to increase individual fees now/in the near future to cover this loss to make sure there is still an incentive for miners to keep mining.
The mining subsidy is decreasing (every halving) in bitcoin terms. In real terms though the subsidy has been increasing over time. You can very easily see this on this chart.
As bitcoin price has (much) more than doubled in the time between each halving. For example the miner revenue per day around the last block halving (50->25) was around $50,000. It is now currently at around $1,500,000. So while the block reward in bitcoin terms has decreased by 50%. The block reward in real terms has increased by around 3000%. At a certain point it is certain that the block reward will stop increasing and decrease in real terms as well, but there is no indication this will start any time soon.
There are likely considerably more than this, so if anyone has any serious, logical fallacies (or simply falsehoods) that I haven't mentioned, I will gladly add them.
To have a serious debate we need to stop pushing things are based on false premises just to try and win an argument. I support BIP101 but I could certainly be convinced of a better solution if there is one, but using arguments like I have referenced to above only creates more arguments which provide no outcome other than all parties wasting time and energy.
EDIT 1: Here's another one from Theymos.
As actual block sizes get larger, it becomes more and more difficult/expensive to run a full node.
This is a false premise as it ignores technological progress and the lowering of cost for technology over time. If block size increases at the same speed that the technology needed to process those blocks improves then the cost of processing each block will remain the same.
EDIT 2: Here's one from BashCo.
BitcoinXT probably won't be the last implementation that tries to subvert consensus via hash rate. Who knows, maybe the next one will want to remove the 21 million coin limit.
Two fallacies. First, as bitsko points out, this is a very clear slippery slop fallacy. There is nothing to indicate that someone who does A will do B. Using the threat of them doing B as a reason against A is the fallacy here.
The second, as rezzme points out, is that you cannot attain consensus, or knowledge of consensus, without first people putting their cards on the table.
submitted by singularity87 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Time to Back up the Truck

Looking at the 6 month chart, a retest of (very roughly) the 350-380 area seems like a nice consolidation to do because the market hasn't solidified that very much yet after the rather one-sided run up to 500.
This could be like the [email protected] dip in mid-2012, which also came a few months before a halving. One last little shake off in preparation for the big launch. It does seem to suggest a big launch is still a couple months out, but a quick reversion to the mid-400s or higher wouldn't surprise me.
Besides day traders just riding the short-term sentiment, whoever is selling due to Mike's statement both hasn't been paying attention and doesn't understand the dynamics at play; if this is due to Mike (rather than merely an excuse for a needed consolidation), it demonstrates that the blocksize issue has been weighing down the market, which is bullish because of how easily that can be resolved. When the first 1.1MB block is mined, all that gets flipped into rocket fuel.
I've noticed that large contingents on both sides of the debate haven't hesitated to use FUD as leverage to make their points. Relentlessly, for months. That eventually results in a large dark cloud hanging over the market, which is entirely composed of faux pessimism. A big bearish illusion. That's what investing is all about: identifying when others are under a bullish/bearish illusion and selling/buying before everyone figures it out, while prices are still high/low.
Here we have a clear mechanism and reason for why there is widespread accentuation of the negative and ignoral of the positives - like how many different huge optimizations such as thin/weak/subchained blocks are around the corner and how fragile the Theymosian empire and Core itself is right now, with 1/3 of discussion already moved off the subreddit and BCT long since largely a wasteland while XT and now BU have shifted the whole conversation fundamentally and Classic is running it into the endzone.
It's rare to have such a clear signal; it's the kind of obvious clear-cut situation investors dream of finding. A gigantic paper tiger looms, a few people realize and acknowledge there is nothing to fear but the vast majority have no motivation to accentuate that as it weakens the force of their latest volley of blocksize arguments or Theymos/GavinMikeJeff hate. Optimism is boring, pessimism is in. What more signal could you want as an investor that now is the time to buy?
This dip could be the very last great buying op. Think how this will look when the first >1MB block is mined right on schedule and the chart of blocksize shows minimal or no blockage actually existed. It would show all this fretting over fake barriers was unwarranted, Bitcoin does what it wants, and will scale. It suddenly turns into a race to front-run the unwinding of all that downside. Oh and there's the halving.
submitted by ForkiusMaximus to btc [link] [comments]

Theranos – Silicon Valley’s Greatest Disaster - YouTube #3 Bitcoin Reddit Censor Dash XRP Litcoin UFC BCH Stealth ... GossipRoom - YouTube Theymos Is Deleting Bitcoin's History - Roger Ver 25th-31st May 2018 Energy Update & Energy Tips For Empaths (Week 22): CONSCIOUS ACTION

I pose to you that bitcoin’s strength comes not from being the embodiment of some dogmatic beliefs of immutability, decentralization or other buzzwords, but from collaboration.The process of taking collaboration and using it to determine human consensus can be noisy and messy, but it’s the governance model within which we must work. Bitcoin is one of the most transformative technologies since the invention of the Internet. Bitcoin.com stands firmly in support of financial freedom and the liberty that Bitcoin provides for anyone to voluntarily participate in a permissionless and decentralized network that empowers people not to be marginalized by governments and financial institutions. Bitcoin is freedom. If Bitcoin XT is forced on everyone, I'm done with Bitcoin. That's just me out of millions so, it makes pretty much no difference. I do not... Global $28.5 Billion Smart Water Bottle Market to 2025: Top 10 Players are Adheretech, Thermos, Hidrate, Caktus, Ecomo, Groking Lab, Hydracoach, Moikit, Open-2, and Lifefuels Cryptocurrencies Bitcoin Reaches Overbought Territory After Piercing $13,000 Mark by Dave Liedtka 10/22/20, 11:40 AM EDT ...

[index] [29407] [47265] [29728] [25612] [19316] [31831] [3972] [32739] [49597] [48473]

Theranos – Silicon Valley’s Greatest Disaster - YouTube

The Crypto Degens Show We're is a collective of degenerates interested in #crypto #bitcoin #fiat and most importantly fucking shit up 0:00-2:00 r/bitcoin red... Marlou Volkerink inspireert haar volgers al jarenlang. In 2011 begon haar ondernemersavontuur met Follow Fashion. Daar kwam in 2015 Followfitgirls.com bij en... Gossip Room est une communauté sur les réseaux sociaux, créée il y a 7 ans, qui regroupe aujourd’hui des millions de passionnés d’actualité TV, people, série... Learn from the best. Check out the comprehensive online entrepreneur video tutorials. Designed to provide you with everything you need to succeed with your s... New Thinking Book: http://bit.ly/NewThinkingbook New Thinking on Google Play: http://bit.ly/NewThinkingGooglePlay Theranos, what seemed like one of the most ...

#