Rick Falkvinge: Right on the Money: Bitcoin hits $3,000 ...

Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?

0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read.
EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction.
There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security.
This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy).
I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions.
The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum.
For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger.
There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet.
Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances?
2. WTF is going on? Recent developments.
There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question!
The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs).
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity.
The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network).
Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork.
The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to).
Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin.
In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies.
Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate.
On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview.
What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network.
In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution?
Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it.
And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary.
Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date.
In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree.
Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases.
Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
  • (1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
  • (2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
  • (3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
  • (4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
  • (5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
  • (6) and in extreme cases actually “remove” their valid opinions if they slip by uncensored, gain traction, and are often times raise to popularity as comments to other uncensored posts (see /btc/comments/6v3ee8/on_a_reply_i_made_in_rbitcoin_that_had_over_350 and /btc/comments/6vbyv0/in_case_we_needed_more_evidence_500_upvotes).
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc.
Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
  • (1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
  • (2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
  • (3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
  • (4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin.
Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions?
First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners.
To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible.
But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit.
At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes.
In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs.
Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
  • (1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
  • (2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
  • (3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded.
Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution.
However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless.
A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited.
Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
  • Discussion at /btc/comments/6vj47c/bitcoin_huh_wtf_is_going_on_should_we_scale_you is greatly encouraged.
  • Note that the author u/bit-architect appreciates any Bitcoin Cash donations on Reddit directly or on bitcoin addresses 178ZTiot2QVVKjru2f9MpzyeYawP81vaXi bitcoincash:qp7uqpv2tsftrdmu6e8qglwr2r38u4twlq3f7a48uq (Bitcoin Cash) and 1GqcFi4Cs1LVAxLxD3XMbJZbmjxD8SYY8S (Bitcoin Core).
  • EDIT: Donation addresses above updated.
submitted by bit-architect to btc [link] [comments]

Arcade City Whitepaper and Token sale

Hello /ethtrader!

At long last, we're excited to present to the Ethereum community the release version of our whitepaper, including plans for our token sale now scheduled for November 1st at 3pm UTC.
We've been banging on pots and pans since January that we intended Arcade City to be the decentralized, Ethereum-based answer to Uber. In April we laid out our multi-stage path to complete decentralization over time, then announced plans to submit a DAO proposal - oops! - and just recently added a crew of experienced Ethereum developers who've built a functioning Ethereum ridesharing prototype in record time.
In the meantime we've made substantial progress 'on the ground' in cities all over the world, with our flagship ridesharing network in Austin giving tens of thousands of safe rides in a completely decentralized manner.
Now we're ready to combine our decentralized organizational model with the solid decentralized tech that can propel our project further into the mainstream.
Responding to your questions and comments below will be our 7-person ‘City Council’, as well as a few other folks who’ve been involved with Arcade City thus far.
Our Reddit usernames are included in the Team Bios section below.

Resources

What is Arcade City?

Arcade City is a decentralized global community of peer-to-peer service providers and consumers. The core technical offering is an Ethereum-based app for web, Android and iOS. Arcade City features an open ecosystem with forthcoming APIs to enable developers and entrepreneurs to easily create their own apps and service offerings as part of the Arcade City network. Initial service offerings focus on the ridesharing industry, with plans in motion for peer-to-peer deliveries and short-term home rentals.
Arcade City aims to reinvent the sharing economy by combining the power of blockchain technology, open-source development, platform cooperativism, and a decentralized ‘swarm’ organizational model open to all.

A hackathon, you say?

Assuming our token sale sells out by the end of November, we'll be throwing an online hackathon open to any Ethereum developers, with a minimum of $100K USD value in prizes, payable in ETH or ARC.
We'll announce super final details about start and end dates, judges and such, after the sale, potentially as soon as the first week of November.
The basic idea of the first hackathon will be to build out the functionality described in the Arcade City Infrastructure section of the whitepaper: the offers, disputes, guilds, referrals, reputation, and assurance systems, with a likely priority on the reputation system.
We intend to crowdsource the majority of our Ethereum development via multiple hackathons with everything open-source on GitHub.
Check out the eye-popping revenue projectons in our whitepaper! Then imagine the majority of that revenue flowing into the Ethereum community by way of incentive prizes to accelerate the decentralization of the sharing economy...

Some press

Team Bios

** Christopher David (MillennialChris) - Mayor **
Christopher David founded Arcade City in December 2015. A former Uber driver, Chris initially envisioned Arcade City as a decentralized, driver-run competitor to Uber. As a blockchain enthusiast and proponent of radical decentralization, Chris was the first to recognize the larger potential of Arcade City as an unstoppable engine of mass peer-to-peer transactions across countless industries and countries all over the world. Using skills acquired during years of grassroots political organizing, he led the growth of Arcade City from an idea into a global movement on a shoestring budget. After much trial and error, he somehow managed to attract an amazing team of talented visionaries passionate to fulfill on the greater vision of Arcade City to ‘decentralize all the things'. Chris has a bachelors degree in international relations, a black belt in tang soo do, and a really loud mouth. And he thinks you should read Swarmwise and Freedom(tm).
** Jennifer Williams (ArcadeCityJenny) - Vice Mayor **
is a founding member of the Arcade City Swarm and has served as the Director of Support since February 2016. She contributes on a full-time basis to expanding operations globally with the other founding members. Together they give new members the necessary tools and resources needed to efficiently and effectively navigate the Arcade City ecosystem. Her primary motivation is to guide, educate and liberate individuals by making information accessible through email, social media, and the Arcade City Help Desk that she designed. After her studies in graphic design and holding several corporate managerial positions she decided to exit the proverbial ‘hamster wheel’ and pursue her entrepreneurial goals which led her to ridesharing. Jennifer has 2.5 years of rideshare experience, has mentored 400+ new drivers, and served as a marketing coordinator, brand ambassador and recruiter, which has given her extensive knowledge of the industry. Through her work with Arcade City she has gained interests and insights into cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies, and she believes that implementing the latest technologies will help Arcade City supercede the ridesharing competitors by eliminating the middlemen and allowing drivers to earn fair wages and build stronger communities while saving riders from price gouging.
** Lauren Slade (ArcadeSlade) - City Manager **
Lauren Slade is an accomplished operations and support professional with over four years of direct experience providing tactical strategies ranging from small startups to large scale teams operating globally. As a forward thinking tech leader she believes in pairing laser-focused user observation with a great amount of drive to constantly improve ways of operating as the most definitive route to unstoppable success. Lauren is steadfast and committed to collaboratively solving meaningful problems with a team who values getting things done. She joined Arcade City full-time in June of 2016 to direct the V2 integration of decentralized management systems and develop operational growth processes. Lauren looks forward most to ensuring Arcade City becomes a self-sustaining business model, free of a central governing council from the top down. Her passion for process-minded management and developing teams inspires her to successfully scale and balance hyper growth within talent and project recruitment. As a natural planner she enjoys getting down to the detail on performance and tracking metrics.
** Kristien De Wachter (kikipluche) - City Planner **
Kristien De Wachter has over 10 years of experience in project management and operations. In the beginning of 2015 she reinforced A-Labs, the City’s digital innovation lab. As lead of A-Labs, making the bridge between experiments and the “outside world”, tackling all problems that obstruct the way towards a good end-product, making sure all team members can work and think freely towards the common goals. Working on decentralization for more than a year. She joined forces with Arcade City on the 23th of September, as a liaison between the dev team in Antwerp and the swarm and swarm leaders, making sure all the cats run in the same direction, always with respect for everyone’s individuality and strengths. Believes Arcade City will bring freedom to every individual.
** Stefaan Ponnet (sponnet) - Engineer **
Stefaan has 15 years of experience in software development, design and architecture. He managed a software company for 6 years and worked for large companies as well as emerging start-ups. Interested in the possibilities of decentralized systems, he was an early Ethereum follower. Since september 2015 Stefaan has been full-time involved in developing Ethereum prototypes for government in the city of Antwerp. Stefaan has a passion for open source methodology and loves to solve technological problems. Stefaan and the Antwerp team joined Arcade City in September 2016 by publicly pledging our support to the community. Stefaan will add his expertise by developing all necessary building blocks - like Smart Contracts , Dapps, APIs, and anything else needed to make this new economy a reality.
** Michael Thuy (kingflurkel) - System Architect **
Michael Thuy has been studying and working on decentralized technology for the past 2 years, mostly from within the City of Antwerp's digital innovation lab 'A-Labs'. In the past year he has been working on concepts like Blocktube and Locals World. From a strong ideological and technical background he manages to mash up cutting edge technology to come up with all-round concepts. Meeting Arcade City, he felt he had no other purpose in life than to contribute to Arcade City's swarm. Michael is co-authoring the Arcade City whitepapeconcept and building on the PolymeEthereum prototype. With Arcade City, Michael wants to make sure his kids grow up in a different economic model than he did. He also would like Arcade City to be the de facto economic model on Mars.
** Ben Adriaenssen (Ben_AC) - Brand Architect **
Ben Adriaenssen after finishing his studies in ‘Visual Arts - Graphic Design’ found that working in advertising agencies or graphic studios was not fulfilling his strong urge to do something good for the world and the people in it. Applying his skill-set to communicate about random services or products wasn’t enough; he wanted to make a difference. Working for the City of Antwerp was a big step in this direction. While starting and working in the City of Antwerp's digital innovation lab 'A-Labs', his lifelong passion for creating digital interactive things has been reignited. Focusing on blockchain-technology was another big step to combining the love for design with the passion for people. Ben is thrilled to be able to contribute his value to a project like Arcade City. Working in this innovative decentral way, with like-minded people in a swarm structure, is for Ben a dream come true. He hopes Arcade City can put the power, literally and figuratively, back into the hands of the common man.

We could go on...

But to keep this to a somewhat manageable length, we'll stop here and answer any questions.
How can we earn your support?
submitted by kingflurkel to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Why I believe Bitcoin price will reach $300 very soon

As you all know the price of Bitcoin is climbing to significant higher price points ($150+) due to more and more positive news coming out over the validity and therefore acceptance of bitcoin. I'm a firm believer that we will see new highs for the price of bitcoin sometime this year. I have come to the conclusion 3 months ago that the price has to increase and test the $266 high sooner rather than later. There are several reasons and events that have happened over the course of the last 3 months that have consolidated this view.
1) The number one reason which evoked this thought was that mining difficulty was getting rapidly higher (at a rate of 30-35%) and the 2016 blocks completion rate was getting faster. However, at the time the price was stagnating at $100-110. This would render mining not very profitable and soon more powerful ASICs would need to come to the market to justify the continuation of mining activity or the mining market would collapse or perhaps the PoW function would need to be re-thought. Something had to give and I thought it would be the price. I felt we would need to see $150-250 prices but only in a favourable environment where more people would see bitcoin as a legitamate currency. This favourable environment was becoming more and more apparent after hearing various VC investors ploughing millions of dollars into start-ups.
CLARIFICATION: In a favourable environment more miners enter the market with newer, more powerful ASIC hardware rendering the current miners with their less powerful and now outdated ASIC hardware no longer profitable. This forces the current miners to hold on to their Bitcoins and wait to sell at a higher price removing this supply of Bitcoins from the market. This creates an upward price squeeze in a favourable environment.
2) VC funding into many bitcoin start-ups has taken off dramatically over the summer where coinlab got $500,000, Coinbase raised $5million and many other Bitcoin startups received $10,000-50,000 from Bitcoin venture capitalist firm BTCVC. While there were lots of early technologies that had funding and failed in the past several decades bitcoin, atleast is the only technology that is becoming adopted in over 80 countries world wide. For a currency Bitcoin is apolitical for a technology it is still not fully utilised. VC funding tends to happen when hope/speculation and confidence in a technology is evident and there seems to be plenty of confidence in it.
3) The closure of Silk Road in my opinion is a great thing for Bitcoin only because it removes the association of illicit drug commerce and the notion that such illegal activity is the main utility of Bitcoin. Regardless of what anyone thinks of drug use and trade it's evident that the number one currency used to trade illicit drugs is the US dollar and notably the $100 bill. Example of note is HSBC's direct involvement in facilitating transfers of $650m of Latin American drug money to and from the US which supposedly prevented a total financial collapse in 2008.
4) Many countries other than US have given Bitcoin the green light for acceptance: Germany legally declared Bitcoin as private money and legal tender (thats subject to tax but at least its legal), Canadian and UK financial services governing bodies declared that no legislation will be placed on Bitcoin, the exchanges or services. Government sanctioned Chinese state TV channel CCTV twice aired documentaries on Bitcoin in the summer.
Overall there are more and more services and utilities for Bitcoin cropping up every week and with that more and more confidence in the digital currency is observed. This is now reflected in the price but some like Falkvinge will argue that it's overpriced due to speculation. But what's wrong speculation? In financial markets, every currency, commodity and company need speculators as ultimately speculators aid the price discovery and determine a fair value. In turn the resulting liquidity indirectly provides wealth and value to the company/commodity/currency.
As shown in this article one of the main issues with Bitcoin is that it doesn't know if its a currency, commodity or asset as it exhibits all three tendencies but conversely therein lies its strength as well. Bitcoin has a set of properties that allow it to have all three classifications and I believe confidence in its adoption is gained by this fact.
Indeed the original premise of Bitcoin is that it's a currency and fulfils the basic criteria which makes it money; it's a medium of exchange, divisible, fungible, portable and scarce which supposedly gives it a store of value. Hence it's been coined the term digital gold. Like Gold it's apolitical however, unlike Gold where it's tangible and safe in ones possession Bitcoin's store of value is derived from its core attribute and that is its cryptography. Paradoxically Bitcoin is not tangible but it can be sent to the other side of the world in minutes and that is value. It can also be stored on a thumb drive and taken across borders without anyone knowing. This is not possible with gold. Bitcoin achieves this with the help of its encryption protocol. The Sha256 encryption protocol so far cannot be cracked and as long as that is secure Bitcoin's utility as a digital currency/asset/commodity remains and with that greater adoption and further fair value determination.
The future is bright, the future is Bitcoin
submitted by Justlite to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?

0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read.
EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction.
There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security.
This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy).
I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions.
The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum.
For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger.
There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet.
Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances?
2. WTF is going on? Recent developments.
There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question!
The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs).
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity.
The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network).
Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork.
The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to).
Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin.
In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies.
Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate.
On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview.
What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network.
In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution?
Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it.
And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary.
Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date.
In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree.
Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases.
Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
  • (1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
  • (2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
  • (3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
  • (4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
  • (5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
  • (6) and in extreme cases actually “remove” their valid opinions if they slip by uncensored, gain traction, and are often times raise to popularity as comments to other uncensored posts (see /btc/comments/6v3ee8/on_a_reply_i_made_in_rbitcoin_that_had_over_350 and /btc/comments/6vbyv0/in_case_we_needed_more_evidence_500_upvotes).
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc.
Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
  • (1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
  • (2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
  • (3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
  • (4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin.
Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions?
First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners.
To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible.
But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit.
At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes.
In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs.
Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
  • (1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
  • (2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
  • (3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded.
Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution.
However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless.
A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited.
Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
submitted by bit-architect to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc posts from 2017-10-03 to 2017-10-09 13:22 PDT

Period: 6.50 days
Submissions Comments
Total 837 20193
Rate (per day) 128.85 2692.43
Unique Redditors 489 2132
Combined Score 26601 69285

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 1086 points, 17 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. Another all time low achieved - The Blockstream CSO just reported Coinbase to the NYDFS (on Twitter) claiming they are violating the Bitlicense (199 points, 91 comments)
    2. Craig Wright is NOT the face of or "CEO" Bitcoin Cash (181 points, 116 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Withdrawals now available on Gemini exchange (176 points, 39 comments)
    4. In just the month of September 2017 alone rBitcoin mods censored 5633 posts and comments! (115 points, 19 comments)
    5. Forget stealing data — these hackers broke into Amazon's cloud to mine bitcoin (91 points, 11 comments)
    6. Why Blockstream Is So Loudly Against Segwit2x (72 points, 52 comments)
    7. 10 reasons why Reddit admins should close down Bitcoin and not BTC (63 points, 62 comments)
    8. These are the real enemies of Bitcoin (43 points, 23 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Core developers along with Blockstream are destroying Bitcoin (36 points, 5 comments)
    10. Theory: Bitcoin Cash price is dropping as we get closer to SegWit2X hard fork. People are putting their money back into the SegWit1X chain for now so they can claim coins on both chains come November. (34 points, 43 comments)
  2. 970 points, 8 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Repost: "The notion of every #bitcoin user running their own node is as dumb as the notion of every email user running their own server.' (279 points, 233 comments)
    2. Just letting Bitcoin.org know that Bitcoin.com will list S2X as BTC (Just like 95% of the rest of the ecosystem will) (243 points, 146 comments)
    3. Censorship question (158 points, 164 comments)
    4. The newest Bitcoin CASH billboard is coming to Silicon Valley! ($1,000 in Bitcoin Cash giveaway contest) (90 points, 38 comments)
    5. Core supporter mentality: Why would anyone ever switch from Myspace to Facebook? Of course they won't, we are already #1 (73 points, 67 comments)
    6. Insights from "a professional capacity planner for one of the world’s busiest websites" on the block size issue. (59 points, 18 comments)
    7. South Korean Startups Are Preparing To Fight The Government's ICO Ban (48 points, 2 comments)
    8. Meanwhile in Japan: (20 points, 21 comments)
  3. 895 points, 7 submissions: poorbrokebastard
    1. Is segwit2x the REAL Banker takeover? (288 points, 400 comments)
    2. No supporter of Bitcoin Cash ever called it "Bcash." (207 points, 328 comments)
    3. The real upgrade happened on August 1st, 2017 (186 points, 206 comments)
    4. We are building a Big Blocker's Arsenal of Truth and we need your help! (143 points, 163 comments)
    5. Understanding the Implications of Restricting Capacity in a Peer to Peer Cash System. (53 points, 42 comments)
    6. Block space is a market-based, public good, NOT a centrally controlled, restricted commodity. (18 points, 48 comments)
    7. Crypt0 on youtube talks about the Segwit2x Banker Takeover (0 points, 3 comments)
  4. 866 points, 4 submissions: jessquit
    1. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (540 points, 352 comments)
    2. If you still think that SW2X is going to be a nice clean upgrade per the NYA you're smoking crack (136 points, 177 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin, even if Segwit currently has greater market share due to its stronger shilling (104 points, 140 comments)
    4. "Firing Core" by running SW2X makes as much sense as firing the Linux kernel devs by running Ubuntu. (86 points, 69 comments)
  5. 785 points, 8 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! (586 points, 117 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Cash Gains More Infrastructure In the Midst of Segwit2x Drama - Bitcoin News (80 points, 35 comments)
    3. To commemorate its Bitcoin Cash addition, GMO has launched a cash-back campaign for bitcoin cash of up to 25,000 yen (40 points, 0 comments)
    4. India’s Koinex Exchange to Enable Bitcoin Cash Trading Soon (31 points, 13 comments)
    5. Unregulated Is Not Lawless - CFTC is investigating Coinbase’s Ethereum flash crash (23 points, 6 comments)
    6. SimpleFX, online Forex & Cryptocurrency broker recently introduced Bitcoin Cash as a deposit currency (22 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash Popularity Allows ViaBTC Mining Pool to Surpass 1 Exahash (3 points, 0 comments)
    8. Trade Bitcoin Cash CFDs - The Rapidly Rising Crypto - plus500.co.uk‎ (0 points, 0 comments)
  6. 745 points, 18 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. Great analysis by singularity and jessquit on how anti-btc trolls shifted: "suddenly last year they all disappeared, and a new type of bitcoin user appeared who were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did." (102 points, 50 comments)
    2. Don't fall for EDA Dragons Den FUD. EDA is a powerful weapon that could kill off or cripple the segwit chain for good. Legacy coin has no EDA crash barrier as this article explains. This is why small blockers use FUD us to disarm the EDA (78 points, 118 comments)
    3. Roger Ver CEO of bitcoin.com says that from his point of view the segwit2x split just gives him more coins to sell for the Bitcoin Cash version which he thinks is the more useful Bitcoin @3min41s mark (71 points, 33 comments)
    4. Proof the new Dragons Den plan could be to try to split BCC with an EDA change. Mrhodl is confirmed Dragons Den, and Cobra Bitcoin is the leader of bitcoin.org which is making enemy lists for big block supporting businesses. (70 points, 47 comments)
    5. Right now segwit2x (BT2) is trading for $1143 and segwit1x (BT1) is $3070 on Bitfinex futures markets. Even with not the greatest terms, you would expect 2x to be much higher. I believe this bodes well for BCC. (61 points, 112 comments)
    6. The other day people were suggesting we do an EDA change before the November 2x fork. Here is why I think that is a terrible idea, and why we should only consider EDA change AFTER the 2x fork. (58 points, 40 comments)
    7. "Nick, Adam and others saw the flaw in the system being that they could not ensure one vote one person.. The flaw in that reasoning is assuming that one vote one person was ever a goal. Miners act economically not altruistically." (57 points, 14 comments)
    8. Original chain is now only 4.8% more profitable than Bitcoin Cash chain after the most recent EDA adjustment on BCC. Very normal blocktimes. Where is the EDA dragons den FUD now? (53 points, 33 comments)
    9. Great Explanation from Peter Rizun at 6min mark, on why Segregated Witness no longer fits the Definition of Bitcoin in the Whitepaper as a Chain of Signatures. (51 points, 19 comments)
    10. Right now segwit2x is $650 and segwit1x is $3906. Search for BT1 and BT2 on this page and you can see the futures prices. (51 points, 102 comments)
  7. 640 points, 3 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. "Am I so out of touch?" (441 points, 163 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Cannot Be Only a Store of Value - excellent article by OpenBazaar dev Chris Pacia (189 points, 47 comments)
    3. Interesting research paper: Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation (10 points, 2 comments)
  8. 622 points, 2 submissions: routefire
    1. "Everyone who supported UASF and now complains about S2X out of fear of confusion/lack of mandatory replay protection is a hypocrite. UASF did not have ANY replay protection, not even opt-in. UASF did not even have wipe-out protection!" (394 points, 133 comments)
    2. While /bitcoin was circle-jerking to the idea that no exchange would list the SW2x chain as BTC, Bitcoin Thailand's comment to the contrary was removed from the very same thread! (228 points, 70 comments)
  9. 510 points, 6 submissions: BitcoinIsTehFuture
    1. Bitfinex announcement about issuing BT1 & BT2 "Chain Split Tokens" to allow Futures trading. (BT1 = Segwit1x; BT2 = Segwit2x) (172 points, 173 comments)
    2. By proving that it can be done (getting rid of Core) this will set a HUUGE precedent and milestone that dev teams and even outright censorship cannot overtake Bitcoin. That will be an extremely bullish occasionfor all crypto. (149 points, 84 comments)
    3. Bitfinex is going to call Segwit2x coins "B2X" and let Core chain retain "BTC" ticker symbol. Bitfinex is therefore calling Segwit2x an altcoin and Core the "real chain". (138 points, 70 comments)
    4. The goal of all the forks appears to be to dilute investment in the true forks: Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x. A sort of Scorched Earth approach by Blockstream. They are going to try to tear down Bitcoin as they get removed. (35 points, 11 comments)
    5. Blockstream be like (10 points, 11 comments)
    6. In light of all these upcoming forks, we need a site where you can put in a BTC address and it checks ALL the forks and says which chains still have a balance for that address. This way you can split your coins and send coins carefully. (6 points, 6 comments)
  10. 508 points, 3 submissions: xmrusher
    1. Can we take a moment to appreciate Jeff Garzik for how much bullshit he has to deal with while working to give BTC a long-needed upgrade that Core has been blocking for so long? (278 points, 193 comments)
    2. The very objective article "Bitcoin is not ruled by miners" on the "bitcoin wiki" was added by theymos on 8th of August this year. Nothing strange to see here, just an objective, encyclopedia-quality overview! (155 points, 58 comments)
    3. According to Crooked Greg, Jeff merging opt-in replay protection is "alarming", because it must mean Jeff wants to blacklist people's addresses too. Core devs keep lying and manipulating to stir more drama and further the split in the community. Disgusting! (75 points, 16 comments)
  11. 505 points, 4 submissions: WalterRothbard
    1. Sam Patterson on Twitter: Can anyone explain why miners and CEOs agreeing to a 2mb hard fork was no big deal with the HKA but is a "corporate takeover" with the NYA? (221 points, 85 comments)
    2. Apparently Bitcoin requires trust now - trusting Core. I didn't get that memo. I think I'll opt out. (169 points, 139 comments)
    3. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: Nothing about NYA was secret (106 points, 34 comments)
    4. How much BTC is in segwit addresses? (9 points, 25 comments)
  12. 480 points, 3 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Friendly reminder: if you haven't yet, watch this video which shows reddit is gamed and manipulated by professional shills paid by companies with huge million dollar budgets. It is up to our community to defend itself against these bad actors. (325 points, 99 comments)
    2. Blockchain CEO Peter Smith on Twitter: "We've dedicated our lives to building bitcoin products, introduced millions to bitcoin, evangelized, long before it was cool. Enemies?" (in response to Adam Back) (147 points, 47 comments)
    3. Liberty in North Korea: Reddit online community members join forces to assist in the placement of North Korea’s Hermit Kingdom refugees (8 points, 3 comments)
  13. 459 points, 4 submissions: singularity87
    1. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. (435 points, 279 comments)
    2. Understanding Bitcoin - Incentives & The Power Dynamic (13 points, 1 comment)
    3. Understanding Bitcoin - What is 'Centralisation'? (9 points, 9 comments)
    4. Understanding Bitcoin - Validity is in the Eye of the Beholder (2 points, 25 comments)
  14. 434 points, 3 submissions: Gregory_Maxwell
    1. Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively" (214 points, 79 comments)
    2. Gregory Maxwell: I didn't look to see how Bitcoin worked because I had already proven it (strong decentralized consensus) to be impossible. (122 points, 103 comments)
    3. LAST 1000 BLOCKS: Segwit2x-intent blocks: 922 (92.2%) (98 points, 99 comments)
  15. 419 points, 1 submission: Testwest78
    1. Making Gregory Maxwell a Bitcoin Core Committer Was a “Huge Mistake” Says Gavin Andresen (419 points, 231 comments)
  16. 412 points, 14 submissions: knight222
    1. Kudos to Theymos who wanted to clear things up... (311 points, 89 comments)
    2. COINFUCIUS on Twitter: We are working with the machine's manufacturer to incorporate Bitcoin Cash support. This is a priority for us. (76 points, 2 comments)
    3. Cash, credit ... or Bitcoin? St. John's gets 1st cybercurrency ATM - Newfoundland - Labrador (9 points, 1 comment)
    4. Banks like the potential of digital currencies but are cool on bitcoin, UBS says (3 points, 0 comments)
    5. The Feds Just Collected $48 Million from Seized Bitcoins (3 points, 1 comment)
    6. while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. (3 points, 3 comments)
    7. ‘Fraud.’ ‘More than a fad.’ The words Wall Street CEOs are using to describe bitcoin (2 points, 0 comments)
    8. Bitcoin is creating stark divisions on Wall Street (1 point, 0 comments)
    9. Bitcoin: Bitcoin's rise happened in the shadows. Now banks want in (1 point, 0 comments)
    10. Japan’s Biggest Bank Plans to “Overcome” Bitcoin Volatility with 'MUFG Coin' (1 point, 0 comments)
  17. 406 points, 5 submissions: jonald_fyookball
    1. Normal, real twitter users don't add [UASF], [No2x] or any "causes" to their user handles. Obvious astroturfing is obvious. Do they really think they are fooling anyone? (175 points, 134 comments)
    2. Greg Maxwell (and others) may be engaging in the illegal harassment of Jeff Garzik. (92 points, 24 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash FAQ updated. Explains why Bitcoin Cash doesn't have SegWit and why it was not considered a capacity increase (87 points, 11 comments)
    4. Is it all a bait and switch campaign? (32 points, 14 comments)
    5. Possible EDA simulation algorithm sketch (20 points, 12 comments)
  18. 404 points, 3 submissions: Annapurna317
    1. Everyone should calm down. The upgrade to 2x has 95%+ miner support and will be as smooth as a hot knife through butter. Anyone that says otherwise is fear monguring or listening to bitcoin propaganda. (364 points, 292 comments)
    2. Notice: Redditor for 3-4 months accounts or accounts that do not have a history of Bitcoin posts are probably the same person or just a few people paid to manipulate discussion here. It's likely a paid astroturfing campaign. (38 points, 30 comments)
    3. The latest TED Radio Hour titled “Getting Organized” talks about the decentralized algorithms of ants and how centralization is not the most ideal state of an organization. (2 points, 0 comments)
  19. 385 points, 1 submission: squarepush3r
    1. Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship. (385 points, 201 comments)
  20. 381 points, 1 submission: hunk_quark
    1. Why is there so much debate on whether Bitcoin is store of value or digital currency? Satoshi's white paper was pretty clear it's a digital currency. (381 points, 182 comments)
  21. 369 points, 5 submissions: craftercrafter
    1. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: Early bitcoin devs luckily picked the right project at the right time. None are irreplaceable, bitcoin will succeed with or without us. (293 points, 57 comments)
    2. Antpool, BTC.TOP & Viabtc all said EDA is a temporary design for BCC. They are just waiting for the new algorithm. (34 points, 19 comments)
    3. SimpleFX, an Online Forex & Cryptocurrency Broker, Adds Bitcoin Cash Payments as well as Bitcoin Cash Trading Pairs! (27 points, 1 comment)
    4. BCC Miners, two EDAs have locked in. This will reduce mining difficulty to 64.00%. If you are aiming to achieve profit parity, you should start mining after the next EDA (in 2.5 hours), because then the difficulty will be at 51%, which gives profit parity on both chains and steady block rate. (9 points, 14 comments)
    5. Antpool, Viabtc, Bitcoin.com, BTC.com, we need to hear your voice. In the case of a scheduled hardfork for updating the EDA, will your pool follow? (6 points, 18 comments)
  22. 348 points, 6 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fact: proof of work which is the foundation of bitcoin and not invented by Adam back was designed to counter attacks where one person falsely represents to be many(like spam). Subreddits and twitter dont form the foundation of bitcoin for a reason. (156 points, 27 comments)
    2. I'm a small blocker and I support the NYA (87 points, 46 comments)
    3. Devs find clever way to add replay protection that doesn't change transaction format which would break software compatibility and cause disruption. G. Max responds by saying that this blacklisting is a sign of things to come. (49 points, 57 comments)
    4. Five ways small blocks (AKA core1mb) hurt decentralization (36 points, 4 comments)
    5. Even if bitcoins only use to society was avoiding negative interest rates, bail-ins + bail-outs, that is incredibly useful to society. Of course a banker like Jamie Dimon would call something a fraud that removes a "bank tax" on society by allowing them to avoid these fraudulent charges. (18 points, 0 comments)
    6. There are different kinds of censorship. The core propagandists are unwittingly great advocates of economic censorship (2 points, 1 comment)
  23. 286 points, 2 submissions: coincrazyy
    1. Rick Falkvinge on Twitter - "Blockstream's modus operandi is not particularly hard to copy. It's just so cheap and shortsighted." -Gets 5000 ReTweets and 5000 likes in 30 mins. TO PROVE A POINT. ASTROTURFING DOES NOT MEAN CONSENSUS (164 points, 15 comments)
    2. Segwit was invented by "cypherpunks" THAT FAILED TO CREATE A VIABLE DIGITAL CURRENCY. Bitcoin was created by a cypherpunk that SUCCEEDED. (122 points, 118 comments)
  24. 257 points, 2 submissions: olivierjanss
    1. Why Bitfinex’s “Chain Split Tokens” are completely biased towards the small block side (again) (205 points, 165 comments)
    2. Reminder of what took place behind closed doors in 2016, revealing Blockstream & Core's quest for domination & lies. (52 points, 3 comments)
  25. 254 points, 9 submissions: SeppDepp2
    1. #SegWit2x is an upgrade to BTC and will use the BTC ticker. (103 points, 59 comments)
    2. Core rage quitting Swiss Bitcoin Association ? - Due to a CSW free speech ? - OMG - grow up little prejudges! (76 points, 141 comments)
    3. "Venezuela could soon decide to adopt the Bitcoin as its new currency" - Hope they'll use Satoshi's Bitcoin Cash - They cannot afford high fees like most No2X / NoCash puppets! (36 points, 6 comments)
    4. A short logical layman proof definition of Bitcoin: Look up, what Bitcoin really is: 1) Whitepaper 2) First code version Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash and includes e.g. the witness. Segwit - Bitcoin is an alternative to this (ALT). (17 points, 3 comments)
    5. Core gets hyperallergic about a free speach of CSW in neutral Switzerland (6 points, 35 comments)
    6. Different Bitcoins: Value proposition, trust, reputation - confidence (6 points, 0 comments)
    7. Four Different November Scenarios (6 points, 24 comments)
    8. Swiss biggest FinTech launches BITCOIN Tracker (valid up to 2020) (2 points, 1 comment)
    9. Watch out for this kind of pattern! If it comes to such a segregation of good old members into good and enemy its gonna be dirty! (2 points, 0 comments)
  26. 230 points, 2 submissions: williaminlondon
    1. PSA: latest rbitcoin post "It's time to label (and remove from reddit.com) what is plainly obvious: btc is a monetized subreddit for bitcoin.com." (126 points, 57 comments)
    2. Did anyone notice how angry Blockstream / Core people are whenever good news are posted here? (104 points, 108 comments)
  27. 227 points, 1 submission: dskloet
    1. All the #no2x bullshit is the fault of the people who agreed to activeate SegWit before 2x. (227 points, 199 comments)
  28. 226 points, 5 submissions: opling
    1. Japan's Largest Bitcoin Exchange Bitflyer Launches Bitcoin Visa Prepaid Card (112 points, 1 comment)
    2. Large Japanese Energy Supplier Adds Bitcoin Payments With a Discount (44 points, 4 comments)
    3. Bitcoin ATMs On the Rise in Russia (40 points, 2 comments)
    4. Russia's Central Bank Instructs Clearinghouse Not to Settle Cryptocurrency Contracts (18 points, 1 comment)
    5. Government Head of IT Department Fired for Mining Bitcoin Using State-Owned Computers in Crimea (12 points, 2 comments)
  29. 222 points, 2 submissions: GrumpyAnarchist
    1. Xapo just sold off another 70,000 BCH today, that might explain the price. They're down to 176K in their main wallet now. (166 points, 132 comments)
    2. Roger, can you make Bitcoin Cash an option, with maybe a link to info, in the original wallet setup phase for the Bitcoin.com wallet? (56 points, 28 comments)
  30. 216 points, 7 submissions: uMCCCS
    1. TIL a BS employee, Chris Decker, and some other people released a study that says "4 MB blocks don't cause centralization" (128 points, 19 comments)
    2. Without ASICs, there would be large botnets that are more centralized (44 points, 43 comments)
    3. Bitcoin-ML Bucketed UTXO Commitment (a.k.a. Blockchain pruning!) (27 points, 6 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's BitCoin, not altered Bitcoin (10 points, 10 comments)
    5. TIL BashCo has a website "2x Countdown" (5 points, 1 comment)
    6. How true is rBTC censorship? (2 points, 7 comments)
    7. If S1X lives and Core Never HardForks, BTC will die in year 2038 (0 points, 7 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. williaminlondon (3150 points, 739 comments)
  2. poorbrokebastard (2114 points, 518 comments)
  3. cryptorebel (1768 points, 257 comments)
  4. space58 (1313 points, 201 comments)
  5. Adrian-X (1109 points, 235 comments)
  6. knight222 (1037 points, 157 comments)
  7. bitcoincashuser (946 points, 188 comments)
  8. jessquit (901 points, 150 comments)
  9. ---Ed--- (758 points, 185 comments)
  10. LovelyDay (742 points, 125 comments)
  11. jonald_fyookball (720 points, 106 comments)
  12. Not_Pictured (701 points, 111 comments)
  13. awemany (675 points, 173 comments)
  14. BitcoinXio (611 points, 41 comments)
  15. Gregory_Maxwell (609 points, 90 comments)
  16. singularity87 (608 points, 44 comments)
  17. 2dsxc (587 points, 79 comments)
  18. BitcoinIsTehFuture (567 points, 79 comments)
  19. BTCrob (534 points, 214 comments)
  20. H0dl (531 points, 79 comments)
  21. dskloet (517 points, 94 comments)
  22. Ant-n (509 points, 132 comments)
  23. nullc (497 points, 66 comments)
  24. tippr (483 points, 284 comments)
  25. todu (476 points, 63 comments)
  26. GrumpyAnarchist (472 points, 127 comments)
  27. tophernator (462 points, 78 comments)
  28. livecatbounce (456 points, 61 comments)
  29. kenman345 (453 points, 49 comments)
  30. cryptonaut420 (403 points, 50 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! by btcnewsupdates (586 points, 117 comments)
  2. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork by jessquit (540 points, 352 comments)
  3. "Am I so out of touch?" by BeijingBitcoins (441 points, 163 comments)
  4. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. by singularity87 (435 points, 279 comments)
  5. Making Gregory Maxwell a Bitcoin Core Committer Was a “Huge Mistake” Says Gavin Andresen by Testwest78 (419 points, 231 comments)
  6. "Everyone who supported UASF and now complains about S2X out of fear of confusion/lack of mandatory replay protection is a hypocrite. UASF did not have ANY replay protection, not even opt-in. UASF did not even have wipe-out protection!" by routefire (394 points, 133 comments)
  7. Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship. by squarepush3r (385 points, 201 comments)
  8. Why is there so much debate on whether Bitcoin is store of value or digital currency? Satoshi's white paper was pretty clear it's a digital currency. by hunk_quark (381 points, 182 comments)
  9. Everyone should calm down. The upgrade to 2x has 95%+ miner support and will be as smooth as a hot knife through butter. Anyone that says otherwise is fear monguring or listening to bitcoin propaganda. by Annapurna317 (364 points, 292 comments)
  10. Friendly reminder: if you haven't yet, watch this video which shows reddit is gamed and manipulated by professional shills paid by companies with huge million dollar budgets. It is up to our community to defend itself against these bad actors. by BitcoinXio (325 points, 99 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 194 points: cryptorebel's comment in Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship.
  2. 167 points: EH74JP's comment in The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up.
  3. 158 points: BobWalsch's comment in I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork
  4. 157 points: BitcoinXio's comment in Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship.
  5. 149 points: MemoryDealers's comment in All the #no2x bullshit is the fault of the people who agreed to activeate SegWit before 2x.
  6. 116 points: Testwest78's comment in Making Gregory Maxwell a Bitcoin Core Committer Was a “Huge Mistake” Says Gavin Andresen
  7. 115 points: 2dsxc's comment in I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork
  8. 106 points: Piper67's comment in jgarzik please do not add replay protection
  9. 106 points: singularity87's comment in The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up.
  10. 99 points: zowki's comment in Bitcoin.com Pool stabilized the Bitcoin Cash blockchain (prevented excessive EDAs)
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?

0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read.
EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction.
There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security.
This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy).
I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions.
The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum.
For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger.
There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet.
Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances?
2. WTF is going on? Recent developments.
There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question!
The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs).
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity.
The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network).
Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork.
The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to).
Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin.
In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies.
Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate.
On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview.
What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network.
In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution?
Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it.
And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary.
Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date.
In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree.
Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases.
Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
  • (1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
  • (2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
  • (3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
  • (4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
  • (5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
  • (6) and in extreme cases actually “remove” their valid opinions if they slip by uncensored, gain traction, and are often times raise to popularity as comments to other uncensored posts (see /btc/comments/6v3ee8/on_a_reply_i_made_in_rbitcoin_that_had_over_350 and /btc/comments/6vbyv0/in_case_we_needed_more_evidence_500_upvotes).
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc.
Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
  • (1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
  • (2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
  • (3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
  • (4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin.
Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions?
First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners.
To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible.
But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit.
At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes.
In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs.
Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
  • (1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
  • (2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
  • (3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded.
Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution.
However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless.
A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited.
Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
submitted by bit-architect to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Value How can we predict it Blockchain Erklärung 17 Min DE The real value of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency - The Blockchain explained (French subtitles) Bitcoin in the clear The Blockchain & Bitcoin Africa Conference 2016 - TAWANDA KEMBO & SIMBARASHE MACHIRIDZA

Copied from r/bitcoin u/Falkvinge is Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party. ----- u/Falkvinge: ... Rick Falkvinge: Right on the Money: Bitcoin hits $3,000, or 1000x my entry point six years ago. Posted on June 12, 2017 by 247 BTC. 24 7 BTC. Bitcoin News Search. 1 News -24 7 News -24 7 Bitcoin -1 Search. Search for: submitted by /u/nor_turing : 24 7 BTC. Bitcoin News Search. 1 News -24 7 News -24 7 Bitcoin -1 Search. Search for: Posted in Bitcoin News, News, Reddit Tagged 247 Bitcoin ... Archived from the earn 0 3 bitcoin every 10 hours 2016 new bitcoin 2017 in urdu hindi on 9 October Retrieved 1 Jan On 16 December day 1 with 103, Falkvinge registered the domain name piratpartiet. To your guess. Only good investment is something that people lonron produce, land is bast investment. limit my search to r/Bitcoin. use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit find submissions in "subreddit" author:username find submissions by "username" site:example.com find submissions from "example.com" url:text search for "text" in url selftext:text search for "text" in self post contents self:yes (or self:no) include (or exclude) self posts nsfw:yes (or ... Activism Civil Liberties Cryptocurrency Freedom of Speech Guest Writers Headlines Infopolicy Posted on 2016-07-18 • by Nozomi Hayase 10710 4. In its seven years of existence, Bitcoin has gained wide mainstream attention with its disruptive potential in finance. Yet, currency is just its first application. The technology’s other potential lies in affecting governance and law. Democracy has ...

[index] [31986] [38660] [45029] [5894] [22321] [28725] [48817] [1375] [36734] [45739]

Bitcoin Value How can we predict it

I do not own this video ; all credit goes to Bitcoin Properly. BITCOIN WILL HIT $5 MILLION - Rick Falkvinge London Real - Duration: 4 ... How to increase your value as a person-Jim Rohn - Duration: 41:09. Impact Mindset Recommended for you. 41:09. Anton ... Today I'll try to explain the numbers behind it all, and how can we affect them - for more lengthy review go to : http://www.bitcoinraven.com/bitcoin-value-s... Published on May 12, 2016 Eine wirklich für jeden verständliche Erklärung der Blockchain, des Bitcoin und des BITCLUB NETWORK... Es ist eine ausserordentliche Alternative zu unserem ... Bitcoin and the Blockchain Rick Falkvinge TEDxBucharest - Duration: 18:17. TEDx Talks Recommended for you. 18:17. LIVE: White House Coronavirus Task Force provides latest briefing Yahoo ...

#