Bitcoin XT Blocks are Being Mined on the Network Right now ...
Bitcoin XT Blocks are Being Mined on the Network Right now ...
BIP100 - Dynamic maximum block size by miner vote
Failed Hard Forks of Bitcoin: XT, Classic, and Unlimited
Bitcoin Xt Nodes – indyref2.scot
Bitcoin's Block Size Debate Has 2 Failure Modes, Critics ...
Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...
Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
The power players of consumer finance in the 21st century will be crypto-native companies who build with blockchain technology at their core.
The crypto landscape is still nascent. We’re still very much in the fragmented, unbundled phase of the industry lifecycle. Beyond what Genesis Block is doing, there are signs of other companies slowly starting to bundle financial services into what could be an all-in-one bank replacement. So the key question that this series hopes to answer:
Which crypto-native company will successfully become the bank of the future?
We obviously think Genesis Block is well-positioned to win. But we certainly aren’t the only game in town. In this series, we’ll be doing an analysis of who is most capable of thwarting our efforts. We’ll look at categories like crypto exchanges, crypto wallets, centralized lending & borrowing services, and crypto debit card companies. Each category will have its own dedicated post. Today we’re analyzing big crypto exchanges. The two companies we’ll focus on today are Coinbase (biggest American exchange) and Binance (biggest global exchange). They are the top two exchanges in terms of Bitcoin trading volume. They are in pole position to winning this market — they have a huge existing userbase and strong financial resources. Will Coinbase or Binance become the bank of the future? Can their early success propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market? Is their growth too far ahead for anyone else to catch up? Let’s dive in. https://preview.redd.it/lau4hevpm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c5de1ba497199f36aa194e5809bd86e5ab533d8
The most formidable exchange on the global stage is Binance (Crunchbase). All signs suggest they have significantly more users and a stronger balance sheet than Coinbase. No other exchange is executing as aggressively and relentlessly as Binance is. The cadence at which they are shipping and launching new products is nothing short of impressive. As Tushar Jain from Multicoin argues, Binance is Blitzscaling. Here are some of the products that they’ve launched in the last 18 months. Only a few are announced but still pre-launch.
Binance is well-positioned to become the crypto-powered, all-in-one, bundled solution for financial services. They already have so many of the pieces. But the key question is:
Can they create a cohesive & united product experience?
Binance is strong, but they do have a few major weaknesses that could slow them down.
Traders & Speculators Binance is currently very geared for speculators, traders, and financial professionals. Their bread-and-butter is trading (spot, margin, options, futures). Their UI is littered with depth charts, order books, candlesticks, and other financial concepts that are beyond the reach of most normal consumers. Their product today is not at all tailored for the broader consumer market. Given Binance’s popularity and strength among the pro audience, it’s unlikely that they will dumb down or simplify their product any time soon. That would jeopardize their core business. Binance will likely need an entirely new product/brand to go beyond the pro user crowd. That will take time (or an acquisition). So the question remains, is Binance even interested in the broader consumer market? Or will they continue to focus on their core product, the one-stop-shop for pro crypto traders?
Controversies & Hot Water Binance has had a number of controversies. No one seems to know where they are based — so what regulatory agencies can hold them accountable? Last year, some sensitive, private user data got leaked. When they announced their debit card program, they had to remove mentions of Visa quickly after. And though the “police raid” story proved to be untrue, there are still a lot of questions about what happened with their Shanghai office shut down (where there is smoke, there is fire). If any company has had a “move fast and break things” attitude, it is Binance. That attitude has served them well so far but as they try to do business in more regulated countries like America, this will make their road much more difficult — especially in the consumer market where trust takes a long time to earn, but can be destroyed in an instant. This is perhaps why the Binance US product is an empty shell when compared to their main global product.
Disjointed Product Experience Because Binance has so many different teams launching so many different services, their core product is increasingly feeling disjointed and disconnected. Many of the new features are sloppily integrated with each other. There’s no cohesive product experience. This is one of the downsides of executing and shipping at their relentless pace. For example, users don’t have a single wallet that shows their balances. Depending on if the user wants to do spot trading, margin, futures, or savings… the user needs to constantly be transferring their assets from one wallet to another. It’s not a unified, frictionless, simple user experience. This is one major downside of the “move fast and break things” approach.
BNB token Binance raised $15M in a 2017 ICO by selling their $BNB token. The current market cap of $BNB is worth more than $2.6B. Financially this token has served them well. However, given how BNB works (for example, their token burn), there are a lot of open questions as to how BNB will be treated with US security laws. Their Binance US product so far is treading very lightly with its use of BNB. Their token could become a liability for Binance as it enters more regulated markets. Whether the crypto community likes it or not, until regulators get caught up and understand the power of decentralized technology, tokens will still be a regulatory burden — especially for anything that touches consumers.
Binance Chain & Smart Contract Platform Binance is launching its own smart contract platform soon. Based on compatibility choices, they have their sights aimed at the Ethereum developer community. It’s unclear how easy it’ll be to convince developers to move to Binance chain. Most of the current developer energy and momentum around smart contracts is with Ethereum. Because Binance now has their own horse in the race, it’s unlikely they will ever decide to leverage Ethereum’s DeFi protocols. This could likely be a major strategic mistake — and hubris that goes a step too far. Binance will be pushing and promoting protocols on their own platform. The major risk of being all-in on their own platform is that they miss having a seat on the Ethereum rocket ship — specifically the growth of DeFi use-cases and the enormous value that can be unlocked. Integrating with Ethereum’s protocols would be either admitting defeat of their own platform or competing directly against themselves.
The crypto-native company that I believe is more likely to become the bank of the future is Coinbase (crunchbase). Their dominance in America could serve as a springboard to winning the West (Binance has a stronger foothold in Asia). Coinbase has more than 30M users. Their exchange business is a money-printing machine. They have a solid reputation as it relates to compliance and working with regulators. Their CEO is a longtime member of the crypto community. They are rumored to be going public soon.
Let’s look at what makes them strong and a likely contender for winning the broader consumer finance market.
Different Audience, Different Experience Coinbase has been smart to create a unique product experience for each audience — the pro speculator crowd and the common retail user. Their simple consumer version is at Coinbase.com. That’s the default. Their product for the more sophisticated traders and speculators is at Coinbase Pro (formerly GDAX). Unlike Binance, Coinbase can slowly build out the bank of the future for the broad consumer market while still having a home for their hardcore crypto traders. They aren’t afraid to have different experiences for different audiences.
Brand & Design Coinbase has a strong product design team. Their brand is capable of going beyond the male-dominated crypto audience. Their product is clean and simple — much more consumer-friendly than Binance. It’s clear they spend a lot of time thinking about their user experience. Interacting directly with crypto can sometimes be rough and raw (especially for n00bs). When I was at Mainframe we hosted a panel about Crypto UX challenges at the DevCon4 Dapp Awards. Connie Yang (Head of Design at Coinbase) was on the panel. She was impressive. Some of their design philosophies will bode well as they push to reach the broader consumer finance market.
Early Signs of Bundling Though Coinbase has nowhere near as many products & services as Binance, they are slowly starting to add more financial services that may appeal to the broader market. They are now letting depositors earn interest on USDC (also DAI & Tezos). In the UK they are piloting a debit card. Users can now invest in crypto with dollar-cost-averaging. It’s not much, but it’s a start. You can start to see hints of a more bundled solution around financial services.
Let’s now look at some things that could hold them back.
Slow Cadence In the fast-paced world of crypto, and especially when compared to Binance, Coinbase does not ship very many new products very often. This is perhaps their greatest weakness. Smaller, more nimble startups may run circles around them. They were smart to launch Coinbase Ventures where tey invest in early-stage startups. They can now keep an ear to the ground on innovation. Perhaps their cadence is normal for a company of their size — but the Binance pace creates quite the contrast.
Institutional Focus As a company, we are a Coinbase client. We love their institutional offering. It’s clear they’ve been investing a lot in this area. A recent Coinbase blog post made it clear that this has been a focus: “Over the past 12 months, Coinbase has been laser-focused on building out the types of features and services that our institutional customers need.” Their Tagomi acquisition only re-enforced this focus. Perhaps this is why their consumer product has felt so neglected. They’ve been heavily investing in their institutional services since May 2018. For a company that’s getting very close to an IPO, it makes sense that they’d focus on areas that present strong revenue opportunities — as they do with institutional clients. Even for big companies like Coinbase, it’s hard to have a split focus. If they are “laser-focused” on the institutional audience, it’s unlikely they’ll be launching any major consumer products anytime soon.
Coinbase Wrap Up
At Genesis Block, we‘re proud to be working with Coinbase. They are a fantastic company. However, I don’t believe that they’ll succeed in building their own product for the broader consumer finance market. While they have incredible design, there are no signs that they are focused on or capable of internally building this type of product. Similar to Binance, I think it’s far more likely that Coinbase acquires a promising young startup with strong growth.
Other US-based exchanges worth mentioning are Kraken, Gemini, and Bittrex. So far we’ve seen very few signs that any of them will aggressively attack broader consumer finance. Most are going in the way of Binance — listing more assets and adding more pro tools like margin and futures trading. And many, like Coinbase, are trying to attract more institutional customers. For example, Gemini with their custody product.
Coinbase and Binance have huge war chests and massive reach. For that alone, they should always be considered threats to Genesis Block. However, their products are very, very different than the product we’re building. And their approach is very different as well. They are trying to educate and onboard people into crypto. At Genesis Block, we believe the masses shouldn’t need to know or care about it. We did an entire series about this, Spreading Crypto. Most everyone needs banking — whether it be to borrow, spend, invest, earn interest, etc. Not everyone needs a crypto exchange. For non-crypto consumers (the mass market), the differences between a bank and a crypto exchange are immense. Companies like Binance and Coinbase make a lot of money on their crypto exchange business. It would be really difficult, gutsy, and risky for any of them to completely change their narrative, messaging, and product to focus on the broader consumer market. I don’t believe they would ever risk biting the hand that feeds them. In summary, as it relates to a digital bank aimed at the mass market, I believe both Coinbase and Binance are much more likely to acquire a startup in this space than they are to build it themselves. And I think they would want to keep the brand/product distinct and separate from their core crypto exchange business. So back to the original question, is Coinbase and Binance a threat to Genesis Block? Not really. Not today. But they could be, and for that, we want to stay close to them. ------ Other Ways to Consume Today's Episode:
I haven't seen this posted in a while. If you've never read this post, you really should. Edit: Screwed up the formatting. See other comments. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Bitcoin is slow because the block size was left at 1MB - 2MB with Witness Data on the SEGWIT network - after throwing the entire "team" developer of GitHub and being occupied by developers of what is now known as Blockstream. This size has been maintained and keeps referring to two issues: Mining in China and the decentralization of the nodes or transaction validators that you point out in the article. Mining in China occupies a good part of the pie that miners distribute - in turn these are the ones that confirm the transactions and undermine the blocks - since 2011 and these Chinese farms are behind something that in the West call "The Great Firewall "that prevents a stable connection and slows down the propagation of the block, its mining and confirmation of the transaction over 3 minutes   causing a large part of the mining coming from China and therefore the power of 'Hash' decreased drastically affecting the security of Bitcoin; The less Hash the greater the possibility of being attacked by the Bitcoin network through a 51% attack that could cause double spending - although this gives rise to many debates since the 51% attack on an already "mature" network like Bitcoin requires a Considerable expenditure on mining equipment to control 51% of the mining power and receiving the block reward and the commissions for confirmed transfer on each block would make it less likely that said miner or mining group would like to make a double expense upon receiving sufficient economic compensation. So only a malicious agent with the intentions of destroying the network and assuming the total losses on the investment of equipment would be willing to carry out such operation. Possibilities exist but these are reduced by being the miner compensated for their activity. In the same references to Chinese mining farms but in another more economical field; Bitcoin has 21 million that are obtained through mining and commissions on transfers. These 21 million are achieved over time and from there it becomes a deflationary element as there is no possibility of printing more coins. The question of the Bitcoin block costly and the influence of Chinese mining goes through the Bitcoin subsidy or, currently called as, block reward: When a miner puts a block in the chain he receives the Bitcoin reward that is "inside" "of that block and which is currently encrypted in 12.5. Every 210000 blocks the reward is reduced by half so in less than a year (312 days from today ) it will be reduced to 6.25 so the miners will see their subsidy fall in half unless Bitcoin's price per coin increases considerably or the mining farms begin to close or reduce mining equipment thus decreasing the power of the network's Hash. If Bitcoin reduces by half every 210000 blocks the subsidy per block to miners will come a time when they can only live and maintain their equipment for transaction fees and in a Bitcoin network with 7 transactions per second and a commission that tends to Increase the higher the number of movements in it makes it unfeasible for miners to continue in said 1MB network and above all that people want to use this payment method that is expensive and slow - more even than gold paper - Because remember that Bitcoin born as Peer 2 peer cash, not gold-. Therefore, if in time the subsidy or reward is going to be 0 or unable to cover the mining equipment expense, it is necessary to find a solution if the developers do not want to touch the block size. And this goes through three issues already raised in BIPs and about the community: RPF (Replace By Fee), Lightning Network and Increase in the number of Bitcoin since the demand for Bitcoin does not rise because it offers a quality service but for security and above all for the manipulation of Tether (USDT) and the large exchange houses: - The RBF consists in the substitution of a transaction without confirmations for another that would replace it with a higher commission eliminating the previous one of the mempool - the limbo of the transactions to be confirmed in Bitcoin -. Although this system seems effective, it does not eliminate the long-term problem of continuing to maintain the reduced block, but rather removes the problem of financing miners, but does not eliminate it and, above all, kills the operation of Bitcoin transactions by not eliminating the increase in commissions that would distance the user from its use. In addition to more easily allowing double spending  . - Lightning Network is a side-chain or second layer, that is, a software development not implemented in the Bitcoin network itself and therefore is not an element of the block chain so this should already be repudiated since being a External and non-auditable element such as Bitcoin gives rise to "blanks" and therefore lack of existence and possibility of auditing accounts  and even the loss of money or cancellation of the transaction  . It also faces the problem of routing since in a network in constant change with the openings and closures of payment channels it is unfeasible to establish a total and rapid diffusion to the nodes of LN - other than those of Bitcoin - so it comes into play Another new element of this network is the watchtowers in charge of ensuring compliance in open channels and over the entire LN network of payments. Obviously it requires an additional cost to hire this service and it is not yet implemented  and taking into account the pace at which Lightning Network is developed, it is doubtful that it will become available . In short, to use properly - which is not successful - LN you need a node valued at $ 300 , a watchtower, have a channel open 24/7 and with sufficient funds to carry out transactions    . - The increase in the Bitcoin offer was raised fleetingly by developer Peter Todd   and will become an open debate in a few years when the mining block reward is low and the price of Bitcoin cannot be sustained only with uncontrolled printing of Tether and the manipulation on the price of the currency   next to the collusion of the exchange houses headed by BitFinex  and personalities of the world 'crypto'  - if he survives long enough to see that moment since they are already behind Bitfinex for money laundering . When that moment arrives I am sure that a BIP - Bitcoin Improvement Proposal - will be launched by Blockstream or directly notified of the measure destroying the essence of Bitcoin and the TRUE DECENTRALIZATION: THE PROTOCOL. This brings us to the second reason for the slowness of Bitcoin. The correct and true decentralization goes through the code and the team of developers and maintainers, not any other. The protocol must be engraved in stone  and that the action of the miners distribute and decentralize the network and they maintain the nodes and the transactions in a completely capitalist economic relationship. Investing in machines and communication improves access, speed and spread of transactions and blocks and makes miners true competitors as well as facilitating the transmission of money and all kinds of transactions . The decentralization of the nodes was the other great reason to prevent the increase of the block and therefore the speed in the transaction. It is based on a false premise to base the decentralization of Bitcoin - which is nowhere on the whitepaper - on the raspberry nodes. The dispersion of the transaction and all the stages of the transaction and the blocks depend on the miner and his team, as well as the search for excellence in communications to avoid orphan blocks - which are stipulated in the Nakamoto consensus and are part of Bitcoin and not they throw no problem in the transactions only in the resolution of the reward of the block that affects the miners and should seek greater efficiency - and reorganizations. The audit on the Bitcoin network can be perfectly performed without there being a Bitcoin node in each house, in fact it would cause the same routing problems that occur / will occur in the LN network. Decentralization should not go through nodes but through developers and to a lesser extent by miners. If a protocol is continually being altered by developers they have the power of the network and it must be in constant struggle by the miners through the commission on transactions. Due to these two factors, the BIP0101 proposed by the developers that Satoshi left in charge  and that originated the creation of Bitcoin Unlimited was rejected, later it was attacked due to its recent creation through DDoS attacks in a statement of intentions of the network Blockstream bitcoin   remaining as a residual element. These two reasons are the cause of the drowning suffered by the Bitcoin network - including many other elements that were eliminated and that corresponded to the initial code completely changing the nature and destiny of Bitcoin that are not relevant and I will not enumerate -, Any other reason is propaganda by those who want to keep Bitcoin drowned in order to enrich themselves with mining sub-subsidies and second-layer software like LN. Bitcoin has a structure similar to gold and can collect certain attributes of it but its destination in efficient and fast transmission as effective - among other transactions. Bitcoin was designed to professionalize miners and create a new industry around them, so mining centers will become datacenters  and they will replicate all transaction logs and even this professionalization will eventually lead to specialization in other types of transactions born new industries around you that will support the nodes according to specialization - Data, asset transfers, money, property rights, etc ... - Bitcoin scales to infinity if they leave the protocol FREE enough to do so. P.D: Core, since the departure of Hearn and Andersen, they know perfectly well what they are doing: The worst breed from the Cyberpunk movement has been combined with the worst breed of the current synarchy; The ends always touch.  https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgxcEOyWNs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h36m20s  https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/  https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf  https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4905430.0 https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds || https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/03/13/lightning-network-has-many-routing-problems-says-lead-dev-at-lightning-labs  https://diar.co/volume-2-issue-25/  https://blockonomi.com/watchtowers-bitcoin-lightning-network/  https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712  https://store.casa/lightning-node/  https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81906/to-create-a-channel-on-the-lightning-network-do-you-have-to-execute-an-actual-t  https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/  https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e  https://dashnews.org/peter-todd-argues-for-bitcoin-inflation-to-support-security/  https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1092260891788103680  https://medium.com/datadriveninvestotether-usd-is-used-to-manipulate-bitcoin-prices-94714e65ee31  https://twitter.com/CryptoJetHammestatus/1149131155469455364  https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/crypto-collusion-the-web-of-secrets-at-the-core-of-the-crypto-market  https://archive.is/lk1lH  https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8W00ssb7x5ZOaj8HKFdbfQ==  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0101.mediawiki  https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3yewit/psa_if_youre_running_an_xt_node_in_stealth_mode/  https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yebzi/coinbase_down/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306"
Transcript of the community Q&A with Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Bitcoin SV development team. We talk about the path to big blocks, new opcodes, selfish mining, malleability, and why November will lead to a divergence in consensus rules. (Cont in comments)
We've gone through the painstaking process of transcribing the linked interview with Steve Shadders and Daniell Connolly of the Bitcoin SV team. There is an amazing amount of information in this interview that we feel is important for businesses and miners to hear, so we believe it was important to get this is a written form. To avoid any bias, the transcript is taken almost word for word from the video, with just a few changes made for easier reading. If you see any corrections that need to be made, please let us know. Each question is in bold, and each question and response is timestamped accordingly. You can follow along with the video here: https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8
Connor: 02:19.68,0:02:45.10 Alright so thank You Daniel and Steve for joining us. We're joined by Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly from nChain and also the lead developers of the Satoshi’s Vision client. So Daniel and Steve do you guys just want to introduce yourselves before we kind of get started here - who are you guys and how did you get started? Steve: 0,0:02:38.83,0:03:30.61
So I'm Steve Shadders and at nChain I am the director of solutions in engineering and specifically for Bitcoin SV I am the technical director of the project which means that I'm a bit less hands-on than Daniel but I handle a lot of the liaison with the miners - that's the conditional project.
Hi I’m Daniel I’m the lead developer for Bitcoin SV. As the team's grown that means that I do less actual coding myself but more organizing the team and organizing what we’re working on.
Connor 03:23.07,0:04:15.98 Great so we took some questions - we asked on Reddit to have people come and post their questions. We tried to take as many of those as we could and eliminate some of the duplicates, so we're gonna kind of go through each question one by one. We added some questions of our own in and we'll try and get through most of these if we can. So I think we just wanted to start out and ask, you know, Bitcoin Cash is a little bit over a year old now. Bitcoin itself is ten years old but in the past a little over a year now what has the process been like for you guys working with the multiple development teams and, you know, why is it important that the Satoshi’s vision client exists today? Steve: 0:04:17.66,0:06:03.46
I mean yes well we’ve been in touch with the developer teams for quite some time - I think a bi-weekly meeting of Bitcoin Cash developers across all implementations started around November last year. I myself joined those in January or February of this year and Daniel a few months later. So we communicate with all of those teams and I think, you know, it's not been without its challenges. It's well known that there's a lot of disagreements around it, but some what I do look forward to in the near future is a day when the consensus issues themselves are all rather settled, and if we get to that point then there's not going to be much reason for the different developer teams to disagree on stuff. They might disagree on non-consensus related stuff but that's not the end of the world because, you know, Bitcoin Unlimited is free to go and implement whatever they want in the back end of a Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin SV is free to do whatever they want in the backend, and if they interoperate on a non-consensus level great. If they don't not such a big problem there will obviously be bridges between the two, so, yeah I think going forward the complications of having so many personalities with wildly different ideas are going to get less and less.
Cory: 0:06:00.59,0:06:19.59 I guess moving forward now another question about the testnet - a lot of people on Reddit have been asking what the testing process for Bitcoin SV has been like, and if you guys plan on releasing any of those results from the testing? Daniel: 0:06:19.59,0:07:55.55
Sure yeah so our release will be concentrated on the stability, right, with the first release of Bitcoin SV and that involved doing a large amount of additional testing particularly not so much at the unit test level but at the more system test so setting up test networks, performing tests, and making sure that the software behaved as we expected, right. Confirming the changes we made, making sure that there aren’t any other side effects. Because of, you know, it was quite a rush to release the first version so we've got our test results documented, but not in a way that we can really release them. We're thinking about doing that but we’re not there yet.
Just to tidy that up - we've spent a lot of our time developing really robust test processes and the reporting is something that we can read on our internal systems easily, but we need to tidy that up to give it out for public release. The priority for us was making sure that the software was safe to use. We've established a test framework that involves a progression of code changes through multiple test environments - I think it's five different test environments before it gets the QA stamp of approval - and as for the question about the testnet, yeah, we've got four of them. We've got Testnet One and Testnet Two. A slightly different numbering scheme to the testnet three that everyone's probably used to – that’s just how we reference them internally. They're [1 and 2] both forks of Testnet Three. [Testnet] One we used for activation testing, so we would test things before and after activation - that one’s set to reset every couple of days. The other one [Testnet Two] was set to post activation so that we can test all of the consensus changes. The third one was a performance test network which I think most people have probably have heard us refer to before as Gigablock Testnet. I get my tongue tied every time I try to say that word so I've started calling it the Performance test network and I think we're planning on having two of those: one that we can just do our own stuff with and experiment without having to worry about external unknown factors going on and having other people joining it and doing stuff that we don't know about that affects our ability to baseline performance tests, but the other one (which I think might still be a work in progress so Daniel might be able to answer that one) is one of them where basically everyone will be able to join and they can try and mess stuff up as bad as they want.
Yeah, so we so we recently shared the details of Testnet One and Two with the with the other BCH developer groups. The Gigablock test network we've shared up with one group so far but yeah we're building it as Steve pointed out to be publicly accessible.
Connor: 0:10:18.88,0:10:44.00 I think that was my next question I saw that you posted on Twitter about the revived Gigablock testnet initiative and so it looked like blocks bigger than 32 megabytes were being mined and propagated there, but maybe the block explorers themselves were coming down - what does that revived Gigablock test initiative look like? Daniel: 0:10:41.62,0:11:58.34
That's what did the Gigablock test network is. So the Gigablock test network was first set up by Bitcoin Unlimited with nChain’s help and they did some great work on that, and we wanted to revive it. So we wanted to bring it back and do some large-scale testing on it. It's a flexible network - at one point we had we had eight different large nodes spread across the globe, sort of mirroring the old one. Right now we scaled back because we're not using it at the moment so they'll notice I think three. We have produced some large blocks there and it's helped us a lot in our research and into the scaling capabilities of Bitcoin SV, so it's guided the work that the team’s been doing for the last month or two on the improvements that we need for scalability.
I think that's actually a good point to kind of frame where our priorities have been in kind of two separate stages. I think, as Daniel mentioned before, because of the time constraints we kept the change set for the October 15 release as minimal as possible - it was just the consensus changes. We didn't do any work on performance at all and we put all our focus and energy into establishing the QA process and making sure that that change was safe and that was a good process for us to go through. It highlighted what we were missing in our team – we got our recruiters very busy recruiting of a Test Manager and more QA people. The second stage after that is performance related work which, as Daniel mentioned, the results of our performance testing fed into what tasks we were gonna start working on for the performance related stuff. Now that work is still in progress - some of the items that we identified the code is done and that's going through the QA process but it’s not quite there yet. That's basically the two-stage process that we've been through so far. We have a roadmap that goes further into the future that outlines more stuff, but primarily it’s been QA first, performance second. The performance enhancements are close and on the horizon but some of that work should be ongoing for quite some time.
Some of the changes we need for the performance are really quite large and really get down into the base level view of the software. There's kind of two groups of them mainly. One that are internal to the software – to Bitcoin SV itself - improving the way it works inside. And then there's other ones that interface it with the outside world. One of those in particular we're working closely with another group to make a compatible change - it's not consensus changing or anything like that - but having the same interface on multiple different implementations will be very helpful right, so we're working closely with them to make improvements for scalability.
Connor: 0:14:32.60,0:15:26.45 Obviously for Bitcoin SV one of the main things that you guys wanted to do that that some of the other developer groups weren't willing to do right now is to increase the maximum default block size to 128 megabytes. I kind of wanted to pick your brains a little bit about - a lot of the objection to either removing the box size entirely or increasing it on a larger scale is this idea of like the infinite block attack right and that kind of came through in a lot of the questions. What are your thoughts on the “infinite block attack” and is it is it something that that really exists, is it something that miners themselves should be more proactive on preventing, or I guess what are your thoughts on that attack that everyone says will happen if you uncap the block size? Steve: 0:15:23.45,0:18:28.56
I'm often quoted on Twitter and Reddit - I've said before the infinite block attack is bullshit. Now, that's a statement that I suppose is easy to take out of context, but I think the 128 MB limit is something where there’s probably two schools of thought about. There are some people who think that you shouldn't increase the limit to 128 MB until the software can handle it, and there are others who think that it's fine to do it now so that the limit is increased when the software can handle it and you don’t run into the limit when this when the software improves and can handle it. Obviously we’re from the latter school of thought. As I said before we've got a bunch of performance increases, performance enhancements, in the pipeline. If we wait till May to increase the block size limit to 128 MB then those performance enhancements will go in, but we won't be able to actually demonstrate it on mainnet. As for the infinitive block attack itself, I mean there are a number of mitigations that you can put in place. I mean firstly, you know, going down to a bit of the tech detail - when you send a block message or send any peer to peer message there's a header which has the size of the message. If someone says they're sending you a 30MB message and you're receiving it and it gets to 33MB then obviously you know something's wrong so you can drop the connection. If someone sends you a message that's 129 MB and you know the block size limit is 128 you know it’s kind of pointless to download that message. So I mean these are just some of the mitigations that you can put in place. When I say the attack is bullshit, I mean I mean it is bullshit from the sense that it's really quite trivial to prevent it from happening. I think there is a bit of a school of thought in the Bitcoin world that if it's not in the software right now then it kind of doesn't exist. I disagree with that, because there are small changes that can be made to work around problems like this. One other aspect of the infinite block attack, and let’s not call it the infinite block attack, let's just call it the large block attack - it takes a lot of time to validate that we gotten around by having parallel pipelines for blocks to come in, so you've got a block that's coming in it's got a unknown stuck on it for two hours or whatever downloading and validating it. At some point another block is going to get mined b someone else and as long as those two blocks aren't stuck in a serial pipeline then you know the problem kind of goes away.
Cory: 0:18:26.55,0:18:48.27 Are there any concerns with the propagation of those larger blocks? Because there's a lot of questions around you know what the practical size of scaling right now Bitcoin SV could do and the concerns around propagating those blocks across the whole network. Steve 0:18:45.84,0:21:37.73
Yes, there have been concerns raised about it. I think what people forget is that compact blocks and xThin exist, so if a 32MB block is not send 32MB of data in most cases, almost all cases. The concern here that I think I do find legitimate is the Great Firewall of China. Very early on in Bitcoin SV we started talking with miners on the other side of the firewall and that was one of their primary concerns. We had anecdotal reports of people who were having trouble getting a stable connection any faster than 200 kilobits per second and even with compact blocks you still need to get the transactions across the firewall. So we've done a lot of research into that - we tested our own links across the firewall, rather CoinGeeks links across the firewall as they’ve given us access to some of their servers so that we can play around, and we were able to get sustained rates of 50 to 90 megabits per second which pushes that problem quite a long way down the road into the future. I don't know the maths off the top of my head, but the size of the blocks that can sustain is pretty large. So we're looking at a couple of options - it may well be the chattiness of the peer-to-peer protocol causes some of these issues with the Great Firewall, so we have someone building a bridge concept/tool where you basically just have one kind of TX vacuum on either side of the firewall that collects them all up and sends them off every one or two seconds as a single big chunk to eliminate some of that chattiness. The other is we're looking at building a multiplexer that will sit and send stuff up to the peer-to-peer network on one side and send it over splitters, to send it over multiple links, reassemble it on the other side so we can sort of transition the great Firewall without too much trouble, but I mean getting back to the core of your question - yes there is a theoretical limit to block size propagation time and that's kind of where Moore's Law comes in. Putting faster links and you kick that can further down the road and you just keep on putting in faster links. I don't think 128 main blocks are going to be an issue though with the speed of the internet that we have nowadays.
Connor: 0:21:34.99,0:22:17.84 One of the other changes that you guys are introducing is increasing the max script size so I think right now it’s going from 201 to 500 [opcodes]. So I guess a few of the questions we got was I guess #1 like why not uncap it entirely - I think you guys said you ran into some concerns while testing that - and then #2 also specifically we had a question about how certain are you that there are no remaining n squared bugs or vulnerabilities left in script execution? Steve: 0:22:15.50,0:25:36.79
It's interesting the decision - we were initially planning on removing that cap altogether and the next cap that comes into play after that (next effective cap is a 10,000 byte limit on the size of the script). We took a more conservative route and decided to wind that back to 500 - it's interesting that we got some criticism for that when the primary criticism I think that was leveled against us was it’s dangerous to increase that limit to unlimited. We did that because we’re being conservative. We did some research into these log n squared bugs, sorry – attacks, that people have referred to. We identified a few of them and we had a hard think about it and thought - look if we can find this many in a short time we can fix them all (the whack-a-mole approach) but it does suggest that there may well be more unknown ones. So we thought about putting, you know, taking the whack-a-mole approach, but that doesn't really give us any certainty. We will fix all of those individually but a more global approach is to make sure that if anyone does discover one of these scripts it doesn't bring the node to a screaming halt, so the problem here is because the Bitcoin node is essentially single-threaded, if you get one of these scripts that locks up the script engine for a long time everything that's behind it in the queue has to stop and wait. So what we wanted to do, and this is something we've got an engineer actively working on right now, is once that script validation goad path is properly paralyzed (parts of it already are), then we’ll basically assign a few threads for well-known transaction templates, and a few threads for any any type of script. So if you get a few scripts that are nasty and lock up a thread for a while that's not going to stop the node from working because you've got these other kind of lanes of the highway that are exclusively reserved for well-known script templates and they'll just keep on passing through. Once you've got that in place, and I think we're in a much better position to get rid of that limit entirely because the worst that's going to happen is your non-standard script pipelines get clogged up but everything else will keep keep ticking along - there are other mitigations for this as well I mean I know you could always put a time limit on script execution if they wanted to, and that would be something that would be up to individual miners. Bitcoin SV's job I think is to provide the tools for the miners and the miners can then choose, you know, how to make use of them - if they want to set time limits on script execution then that's a choice for them.
Yeah, I'd like to point out that a node here, when it receives a transaction through the peer to peer network, it doesn't have to accept that transaction, you can reject it. If it looks suspicious to the node it can just say you know we're not going to deal with that, or if it takes more than five minutes to execute, or more than a minute even, it can just abort and discard that transaction, right. The only time we can’t do that is when it's in a block already, but then it could decide to reject the block as well. It's all possibilities there could be in the software.
Yeah, and if it's in a block already it means someone else was able to validate it so…
Cory: 0,0:26:21.21,0:26:43.60 There’s a lot of discussions about the re-enabled opcodes coming – OP_MUL, OP_INVERT, OP_LSHIFT, and OP_RSHIFT up invert op l shift and op r shift you maybe explain the significance of those op codes being re-enabled? Steve: 0:26:42.01,0:28:17.01
Well I mean one of one of the most significant things is other than two, which are minor variants of DUP and MUL, they represent almost the complete set of original op codes. I think that's not necessarily a technical issue, but it's an important milestone. MUL is one that's that I've heard some interesting comments about. People ask me why are you putting OP_MUL back in if you're planning on changing them to big number operations instead of the 32-bit limit that they're currently imposed upon. The simple answer to that question is that we currently have all of the other arithmetic operations except for OP_MUL. We’ve got add divide, subtract, modulo – it’s odd to have a script system that's got all the mathematical primitives except for multiplication. The other answer to that question is that they're useful - we've talked about a Rabin signature solution that basically replicates the function of DATASIGVERIFY. That's just one example of a use case for this - most cryptographic primitive operations require mathematical operations and bit shifts are useful for a whole ton of things. So it's really just about completing that work and completing the script engine, or rather not completing it, but putting it back the way that it was it was meant to be.
Connor 0:28:20.42,0:29:22.62 Big Num vs 32 Bit. I've seen Daniel - I think I saw you answer this on Reddit a little while ago, but the new op codes using logical shifts and Satoshi’s version use arithmetic shifts - the general question that I think a lot of people keep bringing up is, maybe in a rhetorical way but they say why not restore it back to the way Satoshi had it exactly - what are the benefits of changing it now to operate a little bit differently? Daniel: 0:29:18.75,0:31:12.15
Yeah there's two parts there - the big number one and the L shift being a logical shift instead of arithmetic. so when we re-enabled these opcodes we've looked at them carefully and have adjusted them slightly as we did in the past with OP_SPLIT. So the new LSHIFT and RSHIFT are bitwise operators. They can be used to implement arithmetic based shifts - I think I've posted a short script that did that, but we can't do it the other way around, right. You couldn't use an arithmetic shift operator to implement a bitwise one. It's because of the ordering of the bytes in the arithmetic values, so the values that represent numbers. The little endian which means they're swapped around to what many other systems - what I've considered normal - or big-endian. And if you start shifting that properly as a number then then shifting sequence in the bytes is a bit strange, so it couldn't go the other way around - you couldn't implement bitwise shift with arithmetic, so we chose to make them bitwise operators - that's what we proposed.
That was essentially a decision that was actually made in May, or rather a consequence of decisions that were made in May. So in May we reintroduced OP_AND, OP_OR, and OP_XOR, and that was also another decision to replace three different string operators with OP_SPLIT was also made. So that was not a decision that we've made unilaterally, it was a decision that was made collectively with all of the BCH developers - well not all of them were actually in all of the meetings, but they were all invited.
Another example of that is that we originally proposed OP_2DIV and OP_2MUL was it, I think, and this is a single operator that multiplies the value by two, right, but it was pointed out that that can very easily be achieved by just doing multiply by two instead of having a separate operator for it, so we scrapped those, we took them back out, because we wanted to keep the number of operators minimum yeah.
There was an appetite around for keeping the operators minimal. I mean the decision about the idea to replace OP_SUBSTR, OP_LEFT, OP_RIGHT with OP_SPLIT operator actually came from Gavin Andresen. He made a brief appearance in the Telegram workgroups while we were working out what to do with May opcodes and obviously Gavin's word kind of carries a lot of weight and we listen to him. But because we had chosen to implement the May opcodes (the bitwise opcodes) and treat the data as big-endian data streams (well, sorry big-endian not really applicable just plain data strings) it would have been completely inconsistent to implement LSHIFT and RSHIFT as integer operators because then you would have had a set of bitwise operators that operated on two different kinds of data, which would have just been nonsensical and very difficult for anyone to work with, so yeah. I mean it's a bit like P2SH - it wasn't a part of the original Satoshi protocol that once some things are done they're done and you know if you want to want to make forward progress you've got to work within that that framework that exists.
When we get to the big number ones then it gets really complicated, you know, number implementations because then you can't change the behavior of the existing opcodes, and I don't mean OP_MUL, I mean the other ones that have been there for a while. You can't suddenly make them big number ones without seriously looking at what scripts there might be out there and the impact of that change on those existing scripts, right. The other the other point is you don't know what scripts are out there because of P2SH - there could be scripts that you don't know the content of and you don't know what effect changing the behavior of these operators would mean. The big number thing is tricky, so another option might be, yeah, I don't know what the options for though it needs some serious thought.
That’s something we've reached out to the other implementation teams about - actually really would like their input on the best ways to go about restoring big number operations. It has to be done extremely carefully and I don't know if we'll get there by May next year, or when, but we’re certainly willing to put a lot of resources into it and we're more than happy to work with BU or XT or whoever wants to work with us on getting that done and getting it done safely.
Connor: 0:35:19.30,0:35:57.49 Kind of along this similar vein, you know, Bitcoin Core introduced this concept of standard scripts, right - standard and non-standard scripts. I had pretty interesting conversation with Clemens Ley about use cases for “non-standard scripts” as they're called. I know at least one developer on Bitcoin ABC is very hesitant, or kind of pushed back on him about doing that and so what are your thoughts about non-standard scripts and the entirety of like an IsStandard check? Steve: 0:35:58.31,0:37:35.73
I’d actually like to repurpose the concept. I think I mentioned before multi-threaded script validation and having some dedicated well-known script templates - when you say the word well-known script template there’s already a check in Bitcoin that kind of tells you if it's well-known or not and that's IsStandard. I'm generally in favor of getting rid of the notion of standard transactions, but it's actually a decision for miners, and it's really more of a behavioral change than it is a technical change. There's a whole bunch of configuration options that miners can set that affect what they do what they consider to be standard and not standard, but the reality is not too many miners are using those configuration options. So I mean standard transactions as a concept is meaningful to an arbitrary degree I suppose, but yeah I would like to make it easier for people to get non-standard scripts into Bitcoin so that they can experiment, and from discussions of I’ve had with CoinGeek they’re quite keen on making their miners accept, you know, at least initially a wider variety of transactions eventually.
So I think IsStandard will remain important within the implementation itself for efficiency purposes, right - you want to streamline base use case of cash payments through them and prioritizing. That's where it will remain important but on the interfaces from the node to the rest of the network, yeah I could easily see it being removed.
Cory: 0,0:38:06.24,0:38:35.46 *Connor mentioned that there's some people that disagree with Bitcoin SV and what they're doing - a lot of questions around, you know, why November? Why implement these changes in November - they think that maybe the six-month delay might not cause a split. Well, first off what do you think about the ideas of a potential split and I guess what is the urgency for November? Steve: 0:38:33.30,0:40:42.42
Well in November there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules regardless of whether we implement these new op codes or not. Bitcoin ABC released their spec for the November Hard fork change I think on August 16th or 17th something like that and their client as well and it included CTOR and it included DSV. Now for the miners that commissioned the SV project, CTOR and DSV are controversial changes and once they're in they're in. They can't be reversed - I mean CTOR maybe you could reverse it at a later date, but DSV once someone's put a P2SH transaction into the project or even a non P2SH transaction in the blockchain using that opcode it's irreversible. So it's interesting that some people refer to the Bitcoin SV project as causing a split - we're not proposing to do anything that anyone disagrees with - there might be some contention about changing the opcode limit but what we're doing, I mean Bitcoin ABC already published their spec for May and it is our spec for the new opcodes, so in terms of urgency - should we wait? Well the fact is that we can't - come November you know it's bit like Segwit - once Segwit was in, yes you arguably could get it out by spending everyone's anyone can spend transactions but in reality it's never going to be that easy and it's going to cause a lot of economic disruption, so yeah that's it. We're putting out changes in because it's not gonna make a difference either way in terms of whether there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules - there's going to be a divergence whether whatever our changes are. Our changes are not controversial at all.
If we didn't include these changes in the November upgrade we'd be pushing ahead with a no-change, right, but the November upgrade is there so we should use it while we can. Adding these non-controversial changes to it.
Connor: 0:41:01.55,0:41:35.61 Can you talk about DATASIGVERIFY? What are your concerns with it? The general concept that's been kind of floated around because of Ryan Charles is the idea that it's a subsidy, right - that it takes a whole megabyte and kind of crunches that down and the computation time stays the same but maybe the cost is lesser - do you kind of share his view on that or what are your concerns with it? Daniel: 0:41:34.01,0:43:38.41
Can I say one or two things about this – there’s different ways to look at that, right. I'm an engineer - my specialization is software, so the economics of it I hear different opinions. I trust some more than others but I am NOT an economist. I kind of agree with the ones with my limited expertise on that it's a subsidy it looks very much like it to me, but yeah that's not my area. What I can talk about is the software - so adding DSV adds really quite a lot of complexity to the code right, and it's a big change to add that. And what are we going to do - every time someone comes up with an idea we’re going to add a new opcode? How many opcodes are we going to add? I saw reports that Jihan was talking about hundreds of opcodes or something like that and it's like how big is this client going to become - how big is this node - is it going to have to handle every kind of weird opcode that that's out there? The software is just going to get unmanageable and DSV - that was my main consideration at the beginning was the, you know, if you can implement it in script you should do it, because that way it keeps the node software simple, it keeps it stable, and you know it's easier to test that it works properly and correctly. It's almost like adding (?) code from a microprocessor you know why would you do that if you can if you can implement it already in the script that is there.
It’s actually an interesting inconsistency because when we were talking about adding the opcodes in May, the philosophy that seemed to drive the decisions that we were able to form a consensus around was to simplify and keep the opcodes as minimal as possible (ie where you could replicate a function by using a couple of primitive opcodes in combination, that was preferable to adding a new opcode that replaced) OP_SUBSTR is an interesting example - it's a combination of SPLIT, and SWAP and DROP opcodes to achieve it. So at really primitive script level we've got this philosophy of let's keep it minimal and at this sort of (?) philosophy it’s all let's just add a new opcode for every primitive function and Daniel's right - it's a question of opening the floodgates. Where does it end? If we're just going to go down this road, it almost opens up the argument why have a scripting language at all? Why not just add a hard code all of these functions in one at a time? You know, pay to public key hash is a well-known construct (?) and not bother executing a script at all but once we've done that we take away with all of the flexibility for people to innovate, so it's a philosophical difference, I think, but I think it's one where the position of keeping it simple does make sense. All of the primitives are there to do what people need to do. The things that people don't feel like they can't do are because of the limits that exist. If we had no opcode limit at all, if you could make a gigabyte transaction so a gigabyte script, then you can do any kind of crypto that you wanted even with 32-bit integer operations, Once you get rid of the 32-bit limit of course, a lot of those a lot of those scripts come up a lot smaller, so a Rabin signature script shrinks from 100MB to a couple hundred bytes.
I lost a good six months of my life diving into script, right. Once you start getting into the language and what it can do, it is really pretty impressive how much you can achieve within script. Bitcoin was designed, was released originally, with script. I mean it didn't have to be – it could just be instead of having a transaction with script you could have accounts and you could say trust, you know, so many BTC from this public key to this one - but that's not the way it was done. It was done using script, and script provides so many capabilities if you start exploring it properly. If you start really digging into what it can do, yeah, it's really amazing what you can do with script. I'm really looking forward to seeing some some very interesting applications from that. I mean it was Awemany his zero-conf script was really interesting, right. I mean it relies on DSV which is a problem (and some other things that I don't like about it), but him diving in and using script to solve this problem was really cool, it was really good to see that.
I asked a question to a couple of people in our research team that have been working on the Rabin signature stuff this morning actually and I wasn't sure where they are up to with this, but they're actually working on a proof of concept (which I believe is pretty close to done) which is a Rabin signature script - it will use smaller signatures so that it can fit within the current limits, but it will be, you know, effectively the same algorithm (as DSV) so I can't give you an exact date on when that will happen, but it looks like we'll have a Rabin signature in the blockchain soon (a mini-Rabin signature).
Cory: 0:48:13.61,0:48:57.63 Based on your responses I think I kinda already know the answer to this question, but there's a lot of questions about ending experimentation on Bitcoin. I was gonna kind of turn that into – with the plan that Bitcoin SV is on do you guys see like a potential one final release, you know that there's gonna be no new opcodes ever released (like maybe five years down the road we just solidify the base protocol and move forward with that) or are you guys more on the idea of being open-ended with appropriate testing that we can introduce new opcodes under appropriate testing. Steve: 0:48:55.80,0:49:47.43
I think you've got a factor in what I said before about the philosophical differences. I think new functionality can be introduced just fine. Having said that - yes there is a place for new opcodes but it's probably a limited place and in my opinion the cryptographic primitive functions for example CHECKSIG uses ECDSA with a specific elliptic curve, hash 256 uses SHA256 - at some point in the future those are going to no longer be as secure as we would like them to be and we'll replace them with different hash functions, verification functions, at some point, but I think that's a long way down the track.
I'd like to see more data too. I'd like to see evidence that these things are needed, and the way I could imagine that happening is that, you know, that with the full scripting language some solution is implemented and we discover that this is really useful, and over a period of, like, you know measured in years not days, we find a lot of transactions are using this feature, then maybe, you know, maybe we should look at introducing an opcode to optimize it, but optimizing before we even know if it's going to be useful, yeah, that's the wrong approach.
I think that optimization is actually going to become an economic decision for the miners. From the miner’s point of view is if it'll make more sense for them to be able to optimize a particular process - does it reduce costs for them such that they can offer a better service to everyone else? Yeah, so ultimately these decisions are going to be miner’s main decisions, not developer decisions. Developers of course can offer their input - I wouldn't expect every miner to be an expert on script, but as we're already seeing miners are actually starting to employ their own developers. I’m not just talking about us - there are other miners in China that I know have got some really bright people on their staff that question and challenge all of the changes - study them and produce their own reports. We've been lucky with actually being able to talk to some of those people and have some really fascinating technical discussions with them.
In early 2009, the mysterious cryptocurrency developer working under the alias Satoshi Nakamoto released the first software program that implemented the digital currency bitcoin. Many of hese crypto make use of aspects that were already inherent in Satoshi's initial program and concept. Others take the bitcoin model and adapt or attempt to improve upon it. In some cases, bitcoin has spawned variations which are based on the same underlying concept and program but which are distinct from the original. It is through this forking process that various digital currencies with names similar to bitcoin have come to be: bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, and others. For the casual cryptocurrency investor, it can be difficult to tell the difference between these cryptocurrencies and to map the various forks onto a timeline. Below, we'll walk through many of the most important forks to the bitcoin blockchain over the past several years.
Hard Forks Hard forks are new versions of Bitcoin that are completely split from the original version. There are no transactions or communications between the two types of Bitcoin after a hard fork. They are separate from each other and the change is permanent. What this means is that if you are running the older Bitcoin software you will no longer be able to interact with users who upgraded to the newer software and vice versa. This is basically creating two types of currency, but in this case the currency is not interchangeable. You can think of forks like organizational splits, with one part of a company moving in one direction and another part of the company moving in another direction. That’s exactly what happened with Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold. These are all separate cryptocurrencies within the Bitcoin family and all operate independently with different rules. They are all still cryptocurrency, but are not the same as the original Bitcoin. The two biggest Bitcoin hard forks are Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold, although there are others as well. The different hard forks of Bitcoin have wildly varied pricing and different goals.
The Bitcoin Gold Bitcoin Gold is a different hard fork that occurred in October 2017 with the goal of making Bitcoin mining a more equitable process that only requires basic equipment for mining. It’s mined on standard graphics processing units instead of specific hardware developed exclusively for the mining of which are more expensive, limiting its availability to a few big players. One unique feature of the Bitcoin gold hard fork was a "post-mine," a process by which the development team mined 100,000 coins after the fork had taken place. Many of these coins were placed into a special "endowment," and developers have indicated that this endowment will be used to grow and finance the bitcoin gold ecosystem, with a portion of those coins being set aside as payment for developers as well. Bitcoin Classic When bitcoin XT declined, some community members still wanted block sizes to increase. In response, a group of developers launched Bitcoin Classic in early 2016. Unlike XT, which proposed increasing the block size to 8 megabytes, Classic intended to increase it to only 2 megabytes. The project also still exists today, with some developers strongly supporting Bitcoin Classic. Nonetheless, the larger crypto community seems to have generally moved on to other options. Bitcoin Unlimited Bitcoin Unlimited remains something of an enigma some two years after its release. The project's developers released code but did not specify which type of fork it would require. Bitcoin Unlimited set itself apart by allowing miners to decide on the size of their blocks, with nodes and miners limiting the size of blocks they accept, up to 16 megabytes. Bitcoin Cash In response to SegWit, some bitcoin developers and users decided to initiate a hard fork in order to avoid the protocol updates it brought about. Bitcoin cash was the result of this hard fork. It split off from the main blockchain in August 2017, when bitcoin cash wallets rejected bitcoin transactions and blocks. As of this writing, it is the fourth-largest digital currency by market cap, owing in part to the backing of many prominent figures in the cryptocurrency community and many popular exchanges. Bitcoin cash allows blocks of 8 megabytes and did not adopt the SegWit protocol.
In the wake of a recent network upgrade, a number of nodes have been separated from the bitcoin SV blockchain, a development that highlights why “hard forks” have long been the subject of passionate infighting among cryptocurrency developers. According to block explorer Blockchair, roughly 20 percent of BSV nodes are still running an older version of the software. It’s unclear why these nodes have failed to upgrade. It could because they didn’t know they simply didn’t get the memo, they forgot they were running an older version or their operators simply didn’t agree with the changes in the hard fork and opted to protest.
Bitcoin SV, a cryptocurrency not to be confused with bitcoin, is the brainchild of entrepreneur Craig Wright, who maintains that he created bitcoin. Wright is also currently embroiled in a lawsuit in the US that centers in part around the question of his claims to the Satoshi Nakamoto mantle. To oversimplify a complex debate, some argue hard forks are a clean upgrading mechanism for enhancing blockchains with new features, while detractors argue that hard forks can only be executed successfully by more centralized blockchains. The main cause of the problems with the large 210 MB block was not necessarily the large size, as bitcoin SV had other large blocks in the past, but that it contained a lot of transactions, which used a lot of memory to validate. Critics see this as another sign of centralization of the system because less nodes are having no trouble with blocks. But those in the bitcoin SV community don’t see this is a problem. Bigger blocks have had an impact on bitcoin SV in other ways as well. Our new instance will cost thousands of dollars per month to operate. As blocks continue to get larger and we have to upgrade the instance many times, this cost will balloon. https://preview.redd.it/nf9x682ta8w31.jpg?width=796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd53fbd19ef86139f4792dec8920e2c80336a2d1
The concept of forks and the technology involved is extremely complex, but the easiest way to think about a Bitcoin fork is that it introduces a new set of rules for Bitcoin to follow. Because a new rule is introduced Bitcoin can choose to follow one set of rules or another set of rules, similar to a “fork in the road”. These forks allow for different buying opportunities. There are many different forks that serve different purposes. In this article you’ll learn about Bitcoin forks, specifically what “hard forks” are and what they mean for investors.
Dear Greg (and other Core developers), Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way. Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter. When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now. As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user. With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core. For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source. Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited. So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it. Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do? I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that. Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years. The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it? The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart? I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion. Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid." If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg? Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words. Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning. Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by. Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage. Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire. And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit. So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant. As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed. Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense. Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded. Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor. There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs. Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win. It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it. But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone. Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft. Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight. So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around. You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again. Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right. But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder. Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg? Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice? Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore. And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear. I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face. That's all. Alex Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1842146.msg18335776#msg18335776
Thank you for being a part of the ColossusXT Reddit AMA! Below we will summarize the questions and answers. The team responded to 78 questions! If you question was not included, it may have been answered in a previous question. The ColossusXT team will do a Reddit AMA at the end of every quarter. The winner of the Q2 AMA Contest is: Shenbatu Q: Why does your blockchain exist and what makes it unique? A: ColossusXT exists to provide an energy efficient method of supercomputing. ColossusXT is unique in many ways. Some coins have 1 layer of privacy. ColossusXT and the Colossus Grid will utilize 2 layers of privacy through Obfuscation Zerocoin Protocol, and I2P and these will protect users of the Colossus Grid as they utilize grid resources. There are also Masternodes and Proof of Stake which both can contribute to reducing 51% attacks, along with instant transactions and zero-fee transactions. This protection is paramount as ColossusXT evolves into the Colossus Grid. Grid Computing will have a pivotal role throughout the world, and what this means is that users will begin to experience the Internet as a seamless computational universe. Software applications, databases, sensors, video and audio streams-all will be reborn as services that live in cyberspace, assembling and reassembling themselves on the fly to meet the tasks at hand. Once plugged into the grid, a desktop machine will draw computational horsepower from all the other computers on the grid. Q: What is the Colossus Grid? A: ColossusXT is an anonymous blockchain through obfuscation, Zerocoin Protocol, along with utilization of I2P. These features will protect end user privacy as ColossusXT evolves into the Colossus Grid. The Colossus Grid will connect devices in a peer-to-peer network enabling users and applications to rent the cycles and storage of other users’ machines. This marketplace of computing power and storage will exclusively run on COLX currency. These resources will be used to complete tasks requiring any amount of computation time and capacity, or allow end users to store data anonymously across the COLX decentralized network. Today, such resources are supplied by entities such as centralized cloud providers which are constrained by closed networks, proprietary payment systems, and hard-coded provisioning operations. Any user ranging from a single PC owner to a large data center can share resources through Colossus Grid and get paid in COLX for their contributions. Renters of computing power or storage space, on the other hand, may do so at low prices compared to the usual market prices because they are only using resources that already exist. Q: When will zerocoin be fully integrated? A: Beta has been released for community testing on Test-Net. As soon as all the developers consider the code ready for Main-Net, it will be released. Testing of the code on a larger test network network will ensure a smooth transition. Q: Is the end goal for the Colossus Grid to act as a decentralized cloud service, a resource pool for COLX users, or something else? A: Colossus Grid will act as a grid computing resource pool for any user running a COLX node. How and why we apply the grid to solve world problems will be an ever evolving story. Q: What do you think the marketing role in colx.? When ll be the inwallet shared nodes available...i know its been stated in roadmap but as u dont follow roadmap and offer everything in advance...i hope shared MN's to be avilable soon. A: The ColossusXT (COLX) roadmap is a fluid design philosophy. As the project evolves, and our community grows. Our goal is to deliver a working product to the market while at the same time adding useful features for the community to thrive on, perhaps the Colossus Grid and Shared Masternodes will be available both by the end of Q4 2018. Q: When will your github be open to the public? A: The GitHub has been open to the public for a few months now. You can view the GitHub here: https://github.com/ColossusCoinXT The latest commits here: https://github.com/ColossusCoinXT/ColossusCoinXT/commits/master Q: Why should I use COLX instead of Monero? A: ColossusXT offers Proof of Stake and Masternodes both which contribute layers in protection from 51% attacks often attributed with Proof of Work consensus, and in being Proof of Work(Monero) ColossusXT is environmentally friendly compared to Proof of Work (Monero). You can generate passive income from Proof of Stake, and Masternodes. Along with helping secure the network.What really sets ColossusXT apart from Monero, and many other privacy projects being worked on right now, is the Colossus Grid. Once plugged into the Colossus Grid, a desktop machine will draw computational horsepower from all the other computers on the grid. Blockchain, was built on the core value of decentralization and ColossusXT adhere to these standards with end-user privacy in mind in the technology sector. Q: With so many coins out with little to no purpose let alone a definitive use case, how will COLX distinguish itself from the crowd? A: You are right, there are thousands of other coins. Many have no purpose, and we will see others “pumping” from day to day. It is the nature of markets, and crypto as groups move from coin to coin to make a quick profit. As blockchain regulations and information is made more easily digestible projects like ColossusXT will rise. Our goal is to produce a quality product that will be used globally to solve technical problems, in doing so grid computing on the ColossusXT network could create markets of its own within utilizing Super-computing resources. ColossusXT is more than just a currency, and our steadfast approach to producing technical accomplishments will not go unnoticed. Q: Tell the crowd something about the I2P integration plan in the roadmap? 🙂 A: ColossusXT will be moving up the I2P network layer in the roadmap to meet a quicker development pace of the Colossus Grid. The I2P layer will serve as an abstraction layer further obfuscating the users of ColossusXT (COLX) nodes. Abstraction layer allows two parties to communicate in an anonymous manner. This network is optimised for anonymous file-sharing. Q: What kind of protocols, if any, are being considered to prevent or punish misuse of Colossus Grid resources by bad actors, such as participation in a botnet/denial of service attack or the storage of stolen information across the Grid? A: What defines bad actors? ColossusXT plans on marketing to governments and cyber security companies globally. Entities and individuals who will certainly want their privacy protected. There is a grey area between good and bad, and that is something we can certainly explore as a community. Did you have any ideas to contribute to this evolving variable?What we mean when we say marketing towards security companies and governments is being utilized for some of the projects and innovating new ways of grid computing. Security: https://wiki.ncsa.illinois.edu/display/cybersec/Projects+and+Software Governments: https://www.techwalla.com/articles/what-are-the-uses-of-a-supercomputer Q: The Colossus Grid is well defined but I don't feel easily digestible. Has their been any talk of developing an easier to understand marketing plan to help broaden the investoadoptor base? A: As we get closer to the release of the Colossus Grid marketing increase for the Colossus Grid. It will have a user friendly UI, and we will provide Guides and FAQ’s with the release that any user intending to share computing power will be able to comprehend. Q: Can you compare CollossusXT and Golem? A: Yes. The Colosssus Grid is similar to other grid computing projects. The difference is that ColossusXT is on it’s own blockchain, and does not rely on the speed or congestion of a 3rd party blockchain. The Colossus Grid has a privacy focus and will market to companies, and individuals who would like to be more discreet when buying or selling resources by offering multiple levels of privacy protections. Q: How do you guys want to achieve to be one of the leaders as a privacy coin? A: Being a privacy coin leader is not our end game. Privacy features are just a small portion of our framework. The Colossus Grid will include privacy features, but a decentralized Supercomputer is what will set us apart and we intend to be leading this industry in the coming years as our vision, and development continue to grow and scale with technology. Q: With multiple coins within this space, data storage and privacy, how do you plan to differentiate COLX from the rest? Any further partnerships planned? A: The Colossus Grid will differentiate ColossusXT from coins within the privacy space. The ColossusXT blockchain will differentiate us from the DATA storage space. Combining these two features with the ability to buy and sell computing power to complete different computational tasks through a decentralized marketplace. We intend to involve more businesses and individuals within the community and will invite many companies to join in connecting the grid to utilize shared resources and reduce energy waste globally when the BETA is available. Q: Has colossus grid had the best come up out of all crypto coins? A: Possibly. ColossusXT will continue to “come up” as we approach the launch of the Colossus Grid network. Q: How far have Colossus gone in the ATM integration A: ColossusXT intends to and will play an important role in the mass adoption of cryptocurrencies. We already have an ongoing partnership with PolisPay which will enable use of COLX via master debit cards. Along with this established relationship, ColossusXT team is in touch with possible companies to use colx widely where these can only be disclosed upon mutual agreement. Q: How does COLX intend to disrupt the computing industry through Grid Computing? A: Using the Colossus Grid on the ColossusXT blockchain, strengthens the network. Computers sit idly by for huge portions of the day. Connecting to the Colossus Grid and contributing those idle resources can make use of all the computing power going to waste, and assist in advancing multiple technology sectors and solving issues. Reducing costs, waste, and increased speed in technology sectors such as scientific research, machine learning, cyber security, and making it possible for anyone with a desktop PC to contribute resources to the Colossus Grid and earn passive income. Q: What kind of partnerships do you have planned and can you share any of them? :) A: The ColossusXT team will announce partnerships when they are available. It’s important to finalize all information and create strong avenues of communication between partners ColossusXT works with in the future. We are currently speaking with many different exchanges, merchants, and discussing options within our technology sector for utilizing the Colossus Grid. Q: Will shared Masternodes be offered by the COLX team? Or will there be any partnerships with something like StakingLab, StakeUnited, or SimplePosPool? StakingLab allows investors of any size to join their shared Masternodes, so any investor of any size can join. Is this a possibility in the future? A: ColossusXT has already partnered with StakingLab. We also plan to implement shared Masternodes in the desktop wallet. Q: How innovative is the Colossus Grid in the privacy coin space? A: Most privacy coins are focused on being just a currency / form of payment. No other project is attempting to do what we are doing with a focus on user privacy. Q: Hey guys do you think to integrated with some other plataforms like Bancor? I would like it! A: ColossusXT is in touch with many exchange platforms, however, due to non disclosure agreements details cannot be shared until it is mutually decided with the partners. We will always be looking for new platforms to spread the use of colx in different parts of the world and crypto space. Q: What is the reward system for the master node owners? A: From block 388.800 onwards, block reward is 1200 colx and this is split based on masternode ownestaker ratio. This split is based on see-saw algorithm. With an increasing number of masternodes the see-saw algorithm disincentivizes the establishment of even more masternodes because it lowers their profitability. To be precise, as soon as more than 41.5% of the total COLX coin supply is locked in masternodes, more than 50% of the block reward will be distributed to regular staking nodes. As long as the amount of locked collateral funds is below the threshold of 41.5%, the see-saw algorithm ensure that running a masternode is financially more attractive than running a simple staking node, to compensate for the additional effort that a masternode requires in comparison to a simple staking node.Please refer to our whitepaper for more information. Q: What other marketplaces has the COLX team been in contact with? Thanks guys! Love the coin and staff A: ColossusXT gets in touch for different platforms based on community request and also based on partnership requests received upon ColossusXT business team’s mutual agreement. Unfortunately, these possibilities cannot be shared until they are mutually agreed between the partners and ColossusXT team due to non disclosure agreements. Q:What do you think about the new rules that will soon govern crypto interactions in the EU?they are against anonymous payments A: Blockchain technology is just now starting to become clear to different governments. ColossusXT's privacy features protect the end-user from oversharing personal information. As you are probably aware from the multiple emails you've received recently from many websites. Privacy policies are always being updated and expanded upon. The use of privacy features with utility coins like ColossusXT should be a regular norm throughout blockchain. This movement is part is about decentralization as much as it is about improving technology. While this news may have a role to play. I don't think it is THE role that will continuously be played as blockchain technology is implemented throughout the world. Q: Any hints on the next big feature implementation you guys are working on? According to road map - really excited to hear more about the Shared MN and the scale of the marketplace! A: Current work is focused on the privacy layer of Colossus Grid and completing the updated wallet interface. Q: Why choose COLX, or should I say why should we believe in COLX becoming what you promise in the roadmap. What are you different from all the other privacy coins with block chain establishment already in effect? A: ColossusXT is an environmentally friendly Proof of Stake, with Masternode technology that provide dual layers of protection from 51% attacks. It includes privacy features that protect the user while the utilize resources from the Colossus Grid. Some of the previous questions within this AMA may also answer this question. Q: What tradeoffs do you have using the Colossus Grid versus the more typical distribution? A: The advantage of supercomputers is that since data can move between processors rapidly, all of the processors can work together on the same tasks. Supercomputers are suited for highly-complex, real-time applications and simulations. However, supercomputers are very expensive to build and maintain, as they consist of a large array of top-of-the-line processors, fast memory, custom hardware, and expensive cooling systems. They also do not scale well, since their complexity makes it difficult to easily add more processors to such a precisely designed and finely tuned system.By contrast, the advantage of distributed systems (Like Colossus Grid) is that relative to supercomputers they are much less expensive. Many distributed systems make use of cheap, off-the-shelf computers for processors and memory, which only require minimal cooling costs. In addition, they are simpler to scale, as adding an additional processor to the system often consists of little more than connecting it to the network. However, unlike supercomputers, which send data short distances via sophisticated and highly optimized connections, distributed systems must move data from processor to processor over slower networks making them unsuitable for many real-time applications. Q: Why should I choose Colossus instead of another 100,000 altcoins? A: Many of these alt-coins are all very different projects. ColossusXT is the only Grid computing project with a focus on user privacy. We have instant transactions, and zero-fee transactions and ColossusXT is one of the very few coins to offer live support. Check out our Whitepaper! Q: Will there be an option (in the future) to choose between an anonymous or public transaction? A: Zerocoin is an evolution of the current coin mixing feature. Both allow an individual to decide how they would like to send their transactions. Q: What exchange has highest volume for ColossusXT, and are there any plans for top exchanges soon ? A: Currently Cryptopia carries the majority of ColossusXT volume. We are speaking with many different exchanges, and preparing requested documentation for different exchanges. ColossusXT intends to be traded on every major exchange globally. Q: What is the TPS speed that colx blockchain achieves? A: ColossusXT achieves between 65-67 TPS depending on network conditions currently. Q: Plans on expanding the dev team? A: As development funds allow it, the team will be expanded. Development costs are high for a unique product like ColossusXT, and a good majority of our budget is allocated to it. Q: Can you explain what is and what are the full porpose of the COLOSSUSXT GRID PROJECT ? A: Colossus Grid is explained in the whitepaper. The uses for grid computing and storage are vast, and we are only starting to scratch the surface on what this type of computing power can do. There is also a description within the formatting context within the AMA of the Colossus Grid. Q: Is there mobile wallet for Android and iOS? If not, is there a roadmap? A: There Android wallet is out of beta and on the Google PlayStore: iOS wallet is planned for development. The roadmap can be found here: https://colossusxt.io/roadmap/ Q: Is ColossusXT planning on partnering up with other cryptocurrency projects? Such as: Bread and EQUAL. A: ColossusXT plans on partnering with other crypto projects that make sense. We look for projects that can help alleviate some of our development work / provide quality of life upgrades to our investors so that we can focus on Colossus Grid development. When absolutely love it when the community comes to us with great projects to explore. Q: Did you ever considered a coinburn? Don't you think a coin burn will increase COLX price and sustain mass adoption? Do you plan on keeping the price of COLX in a range so the potential big investors can invest in a not so much volatile project? A**:** There are no plans to do a coinburn at this time. Please check out our section in the whitepaper about the supply. Q: what is the next big exchange for colx to be listed ? A: There are several exchanges that will be listing ColossusXT soon. Stay tuned for updates within the community as some have already been announced and future announcements.
Q: How will Colx compete with other privacy coins which claim to be better like Privacy? A: ColossusXT is not competing with other privacy coins. ColossusXT will evolve into the Colossus Grid, which is built on the backbone of a privacy blockchain. In our vision, all these other privacy coins are competing for relevancy with ColossusXT. There are also similar responses to question that may hit on specifics. Q: Does COLX have a finite number of coins like bitcoin? A: No, ColossusXT is Proof of Stake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake Q: What are the advantages of COLX over other competitor coins (eg. ECA)? A: The only similarities between ColossusXT and Electra is that we are both privacy blockchains. ColossusXT is very much an entirely different project that any other privacy coin in the blockchain world today. The Colossus Grid will be a huge advantage over any other privacy coin. Offering the ability for a desktop machine to rent power from others contributing to the Colossus Grid and perform and compute high level tasks. Q: How do you feel about some countries frowning upon privacy coins and how do you plan to change their minds (and what do you plan to do about it?) A: The ColossusXT team tries to view opinions from multiple perspectives so that we can understand each line of thinking. As blockchain technology becomes more widely adopted, so will the understanding of the importance of the privacy features within ColossusXT. Privacy is freedom. Q: How do you see COLX in disrupting cloud gaming services such as PlayStation Now? A: Cloud gaming services have not been discussed. Initial marketing of our private grid computing framework will be targeted at homes users, governments, and cyber security firms who may require more discretion / anonymity in their work. Q: Since colx is a privacy coin and is known for its privacy in the transactions due to which lot of money laundering and scams could take place, would colx and its community be affected due to it? And if does then how could we try to prevent it? A: ColossusXT intends to be known for the Colossus Grid. The Colossus Grid development will be moved up from Q1 2019 to Q3 2018 to reflect this message and prevent further miscommunication about what privacy means for the future of ColossusXT. Previous answers within this AMA may further elaborate on this question. Q: When do you plan to list your coin on other "bigger" exchanges? A: ColossusXT is speaking with many different exchanges. These things have many different factors. Exchanges decide on listing dates and we expect to see ColossusXT listed on larger exchanges as we approach the Colossus Grid Beta. The governance system can further assist in funding. Q: What was the rationale behind naming your coin ColossusXT? A:Colossus was a set of computers developed by British codebreakers in the years 1943–1945. XT symbolises ‘extended’ as the coin was forked from the original Cv2 coin. Q: Can you give any details about the E Commerce Marketplace, and its progress? A: The Ecommerce Marketplace is a project that will receive attention after our development pass on important privacy features for the grid. In general, our roadmap will be changing to put an emphasis on grid development. Q: How will someone access the grid, and how will you monetize using the grid? Will there be an interface that charges COLX for time on the grid or data usage? A: The Colossus Grid will be integrated within the ColossusXT wallet. Buying & Selling resources will happen within the wallet interface. You won't be able to charge for "time" on the grid, and have access to unlimited resources. The goal is to have users input what resources they need, and the price they are willing to pay. The Colossus Grid will then look for people selling resources at a value the buyer is willing to pay. Time may come into play based on which resources you are specifically asking for. Q: Are there any plans to launch an official YouTube channel with instructional videos about basic use of the wallets and features of COLX? Most people are visually set and learn much faster about wallets when actually seeing it happen before they try themselves. This might attract people to ColossusXT and also teach people about basic use of blockchain and cryptocurrency wallets. I ask this because I see a lot of users on Discord and Telegram that are still learning and are asking a lot of real basic questions. A: ColossusXT has an official YT account with instructional videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCmMLUSK4YoxKvrLoKJnzng Q: What are the usp's of colx in comparing to other privacy coins? A: Privacy coins are a dime a dozen. ColossusXT has different end goals than most privacy coins, and this cannot be stated enough. Our goal is not just to be another currency, but to build a sophisticated computing resource sharing architecture on top of the privacy blockchain. Q: A new exchange will probably gain more liquidity for our coin. If you might choose 3 exchanges to get COLX listed, what would be your top 3? A: ColossusXT intends to be listed on all major exchanges globally. :) Q: What is the future of privacy coins? What will be the future colx userbase (beyond the first adopters and enthusiasts)? A: The future of privacy is the same it has always been. Privacy is something each and everyone person owns, until they give it away to someone else. Who is in control of your privacy? You or another person or entity?The future of the ColossusXT user base will comprise of early adopters, enthusiast, computer science professionals, artificial intelligence, and computational linguistics professionals for which these users can utilize the Colossus Grid a wide range of needs. Q: Will ColossusXT join more exchanges soon?? A: Yes. :) Q: So when will Colossus put out lots of advertisement to the various social media sites to get better known? Like Youtube videos etc. A: As we get closer to a product launch of the Colossus Grid, you’ll begin to see more advertisements, YouTubers, and interviews. We’re looking to also provide some presentations at blockchain conferences in 2018, and 2019. Q: In your opinion, what are some of the issues holding COLX back from wider adoption? In that vein, what are some of the steps the team is considering to help address those issues? A: One of the main issues that is holding ColossusXT back from a wider adoption is our endgame is very different from other privacy coins. The Colossus Grid. In order to address this issue, the ColossusXT team intends to have a Colossus Grid Beta out by the end of Q4 and we will move development of the Colossus Grid from Q1 2019 to Q3 2018. Q: Or to see it from another perspective - what are some of the biggest issues with crypto-currency and how does COLX address those issues? A: Biggest issue is that cryptocurrency is seen as a means to make quick money, what project is going to get the biggest “pump” of the week, and there is not enough focus on building blockchain technologies that solve problems or creating legitimate business use cases. For the most part we believe the base of ColossusXT supporters see our end-game, and are willing to provide us with the time and support to complete our vision. The ColossusXT team keeps its head down and keeps pushing forward. Q: I know it's still early in the development phase but can you give a little insight into what to look forward to regarding In-wallet voting and proposals system for the community? How much power will the community have regarding the direction COLX development takes in the future? A: The budget and proposal system is detailed in the whitepaper. Masternode owners vote on and guide the development of ColossusXT by voting on proposals put forth by the community and business partners. Our goal is to make this process as easy and accessible as possible to our community. Q: Will there be an article explaining the significance of each partnership formed thus far? A: Yes, the ColossusXT team will announce partners on social media, and community outlets. A detailed article of what partnerships mean will be available on our Medium page: https://medium.com/@colossusxt Q: What potential output from the Grid is expected and what would it's use be? For example, x teraflops which could process y solutions to protein folding in z time. A: There are many uses for grid computing. A crypto enthusiast mining crypto, a cyber security professional cracking a password using brute force, or a scientist producing climate prediction models. The resources available to put towards grid projects will be determined by the number of nodes sharing resources, and the amount of resources an individual is willing to purchase with COLX. All individuals will not have access to infinite grid resources. Q: Is there a paper wallet available? A: Yes, see https://mycolxwallet.org Q: Is there a possibility of implementing quantum computer measures in the future? A: This is a great idea for potentially another project in the future. Currently this is not possible with the Colossus Grid. Instead of bits, which conventional computers use, a quantum computer uses quantum bits—known as qubits. In classical computing, a bit is a single piece of information that can exist in two states – 1 or 0. Quantum computing uses quantum bits, or 'qubits' instead. These are quantum systems with two states. However, unlike a usual bit, they can store much more information than just 1 or 0, because they can exist in any superposition of these values. Q: Do you plan to do a coin burn? A: No future coin burns are planned. Anything like this would go through a governance proposal and Masternode owners would vote on this. This is not anything we’ve seen within the community being discussed. Q: Can I check the exact number of current COLX master node and COLX staking node? A: Yes. You can view the Masternodes and the amount of ColossusXT (COLX) being staked by viewing the block explorer. Block explorer: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/colx/#!extraction Q: What incentive could we give a youtuber to do the BEST video of ColossusXT (COLX)? A: We've been approached by several YouTubers. The best thing a YouTuber can do is understand what ColossusXT is, join the community, ask questions if there is something they don't understand. The problem with many YouTubers is that some of them are just trying to get paid, they don't really care to provide context or research a project. Disclaimer: This is not all YouTubers, but many. Q: In which ways is the ColossusGrid different from other supercomputer / distributed computing projects out there. Golem comes to mind. Thanks! A: The main difference is that we are focused on the end users privacy, and the types of users that we will be targeting will be those that need more discretion / anonymity in their work. We are building framework that will continue to push the boundaries of user privacy as it relates to grid computing. Q: Can we please complete our roadmap ahead of schedule? I find most other coins that do this actually excell in terms of price and community members. Keep on top of the game :) A: The Colossus XT roadmap is a very fluid document, and it is always evolving. Some items are moved up in priority, and others are moved back. The roadmap should not be thought of something that is set in stone. Q: Does COLX have master nodes? A: Yes. ColossusXT has masternodes. Q: Have thought about providing a method to insert a form of payment in colx in any page that wants to use cryptocurrencies in a fast and simple way in order to masive adoption???? A: There is already this option.https://mycryptocheckout.com/coins/ Q: What do you think your community progress till now? A: The community has grown greatly in the last 3 months. We’re very excited to go from 13 to 100 questions in our quarterly AMA. Discord, Telegram, and Twitter are growing everyday. Q: I noticed on Roadmap: Coinomi and ahapeshift wallet integration. Can you tell me more about this? I am new in crypto and new ColX investor so I don't know much about this. Thanks and keep a good work. A: Coinomi is a universal wallet. ColossusXT will have multiple wallet platforms available to it. Shapeshift allows you to switch one crypto directly for another without the use of a coupler (BTC). Q: Is "A general-purpose decentralized marketplace" written in the whitepaper the same as "E-COMMERCE MARKETPLACE" written on the roadmap? Please tell me about "A general-purpose decentralized marketplace" or "E-COMMERCE MARKETPLACE" in detail. A: Details will be posted as we get closer to the marketplace. It will be similar to other marketplaces within blockchain. Stay tuned for more information by following us on Twitter. Q: History has shown that feature-based technologies always get replaced by technologies with platforms that incorporate those features; what is colossius big picture? A: The Colossus Grid. Which has been explained within this AMA in a few different ways. Q: What are the main objectives for COLX team this year? Provide me 5 reason why COLX will survive in a long term perspective? Do you consider masternodes working in a private easy to setup wallet on a DEX network? Already big fan, have a nice day! A: Getting into Q3 our main object is to get a working product of the Colossus Grid by the end of Q4.
Community - Our community is growing everyday as knowledge about what we’re building grows. When the Colossus Grid is online we expect expansion to grow at a rapid pace as users connect to share resources.
Team - The ColossusXT team will continue to grow. We are stewards of a great community and an amazing project. Providing a level of support currently unseen in many other projects through Discord. The team cohesion and activity within the community is a standard we intend to set within the blockchain communities.
Features - ColossusXT and The Colossus Grid will have user friendly AI. We understand the difficulties when users first enter blockchain products. The confusion between keys, sending/receiving addresses, and understanding available features within. Guides will always be published for Windows/Mac/Linux with updates so that these features can be easily understood.
Colossus Grid - The Colossus Grid answers real world problems, and provides multiple solutions while also reducing energy consumption.
Use Case - Many of the 1000+ other coins on the market don’t have the current use-case that ColossusXT has, let alone the expansion of utility use-cases in multiple sectors.
Users and miners running full Bitcoin nodes will reject the XT blockchain starting with the first block that is larger than one megabyte in size, and. 28 Apr 2018. Once connected, nodes receive an updated version of the ledger with. At the time of writing, there are only 11 Bitcoin XT nodes in service. New Unlimited nodes popped up in massive numbers at around the same time. Bitcoin Unlimited ... BIP100 replaces the static block size limit in Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and in Bitcoin (BTC) with a hard limit set by coinbase vote. A simple deterministic system is specified, whereby a 75% mining supermajority may activate a change to the maximum block size each 2016 blocks. Each change is limited to a 5% increase from the previous block size hard limit, or a decrease of similar magnitude. View ... Bitcoin Cash, which split in August 2017, currently has a maximum block size of 32 MB. Bitcoin SV, which split from Bitcoin Cash in 2018, currently has a maximum block size of 2 GB. Earlier (and now defunct) Bitcoin forks such as Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic also attempted to confront the issue. It is no secret that the discussion on whether Bitcoin XT is an altcoin or a proper way forward for the Bitcoin ecosystem will carry on for quite some time. Even though the actual block size ... Furthermore, the 8MB size block only has 66 transactions stored inside, whereas the regular 1MB size block contained 1,760 transactions. These numbers do not represent anything though, but it was interesting to note how two blocks from the same pool of a different size can be affected. Major Chinese Mining Pools in Favor of Bitcoin XT. A large ...
New Numberblocks 1 - 100 - 1000 - 10 000 - 1 Billion Big ...
New Numberblocks 1 - 100 - 1000 - 10 000 - 1 Billion Big Number Numberblocks NMBLK lets go Numberblocks 1000 #numberblocks #bignumber #numberblocks1000 #nmbl... Excerpt from Episode 82 of Epicenter Bitcoin. Mike Hearn describes the "worst case scenario" that could follow after the 20MB block size limit is introduced into Bitcoin XT. Miners (e.g., in China ... Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin's recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin's ... In studying these early writings, it becomes clear that Bitcoin's founder favored a larger maximum block size. This vision has become realized in Bitcoin Cash. This vision has become realized in ... Ethereum Classic, Block sizes, BitFinex hack and central banks Part 2 - Duration: 13 ... Ethereum's Blockchain Trust Disrupted: Bitcoin and the Blockchain S1:E5 - Duration: 7:39. TechCrunch ...