Will Scaling Bitcoin Bring Us to Consensus on the Block ...
Will Scaling Bitcoin Bring Us to Consensus on the Block ...
Block 478,559: Bitcoin Cash Fans Worldwide Celebrate the ...
Block size limit debate history lesson : btc
Episode #77: Collective Governance The Bitcoin Podcast ...
Bitcoin Block Reward Halving Countdown
*New Story* Do autonomous trucks dream of CW McCall?
I've got some serial stories I'd like to tell about living with (and in) technology and the industry. Do autonomous trucks dream of CW McCall? Falstaff’s story “For a bright shining moment, we added a lot of shareholder value”. Falstaff had a comic with that caption in his double sized cubicle, the kind reserved for senior engineers. For a while he thought it showed that he didn’t fully buy into the corporate line, but that he’d still do as he was told as long as he had a shot at the big payout. RSUs, the big acquisition. The end of year bonus. That was the deal in the before time, when things mostly worked out for most people it seemed. Falstaff knew he wasn’t the smartest, but he didn’t complain, didn’t pick fights and lived pretty well. His bad habits didn’t impact his work life and he still might hit it big enough to quit and try something else. To have options. Then everything happened at once. The fires. The diseases. The chaos. Nobody knew who was in charge for a year or so. Things came back. A few years passed and the wealthy parts of the coastal cities looked shiny again. Most people called it normal. To the casual eye, it was. You could still get sushi delivered to the office late at night, ski in the Rockies if you could take the time off. Things were pretty good if you stayed where you belonged and kept your metrics up. Things fell off as you went East or to the not-so-quaint rural areas that couldn’t swing a music festival or good photo opportunities for social media. Go far enough and you found the places where the Feds just walked away. Not our problem any more. That’s how Falstaff saw the world and his place in it. He had’nt had much sleep. Drugs, risky behavior and the self-loathing kept him occupied, making his morning commute that much less pleasant. He stopped staring at the RVs and tents parked on the land next to the on-ramp as he got on the 101. He jabbed the infotainment system to find some noise to sooth or at least distract him. “Today, the Department of Energy announced that repairs have been completed ahead of schedule for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Radiation levels are now below acceptable levels for the first time in three years” Click. “We’ve got an autonomous truck accident with a car by Exit 6 on the 280 Eastbound, so expect delays while CHP and a support team from Freightliner gets that cleaned up” Click. It didn’t work. He still felt adrift and unhappy in the morning commute, so he silenced the radio and drove to the office. The office was uneventful. Park, security checkpoint, a long walk to his building, a coffee on the way to his cubicle. He pulled the privacy screen closed behind him and sat down. A quick scan of his eyes and there was his project- a payment processing application that would cut out another payment application for a small percentage of a massive stream of money. He looked over last night’s chatter, split the tasks into ‘do the work’ and ‘show that I’m adding value’ categories. The fear and sadness caught up with him. He wasn’t ever going to get out. If he ran as fast as he could, he’d stay exactly where he was until his rent outpaced his income. His stock options would vest just fast enough to keep him going, but he’d never get out. The morning dragged. Tweak this, report this to someone else. The bureaucratic minutiae and make-work washed over him until lunch. He looked forward to lunch with Tran, hoping that might get him out of his funk. Tran wasn’t so much a friend as one of the few people who admitted how screwed up everything was, so there wasn’t any danger of speaking the obvious and getting a negative reputation. Tran was out today, so Falstaff ate leftovers and instant noodles in his cubicle. His phone buzzed. There was a message on MomTalk, a chat for wealthy mothers to discuss brunch, day drinking and their children. An engineer friend of Falstaff’s set it up as a joke to lampoon the women she couldn’t stand and her friends played along, adopting over the top personae and complaining about nonexistent spouses and domestic staff. After things came back, it was a way to talk freely, if in code. Heather: Hey. I’m in deep trouble. The Nanny’s unhappy and I need someone to pick up the kids. Falstaff sighed. Tran must need something. Sheila: Missed you for lunch. Not feeling well? Heather: Serious. My kid is stuck under my desk and I need him to come home. UNDERSTAND? NOW! Sheila:kk. He got up, took his brown cardboard biodegradable instant noodle container and walked a few rows over to Tran’s cubicle. Where Falstaff’s cube was disorganized and well worn, Tran’s was sparse with better furniture. Falstaff felt under the desk and noticed a decal with one end loose. A quick pull and the label peeled off into his hand, along with a small flash memory card, the size of a fingernail. He stood up and quickly looked up and down the aisle between the cubicles. Nobody noticed. Nobody really paid much attention to him on a good day unless they needed something from him anyway. Back in his own cubicle, he went back to the chat: Sheila: How urgent is this? Chip can have dinner with us or we can drop him off on the way to fencing class. Heather:NO TIME. FAMILY’S HERE AND THINGS ARE TENSE. Heather:RUN. GET OUT NOW. Heather:REALLY. Falstaff was concerned. Tran didn’t make jokes. Laughing at Falstaff’s attempts at humor was enough. He had figured that Tran’s talk of ‘having gangsters in his family’ was an attempt to seem dangerous despite being a cubicle denizen, the way middle aged men bought loud motorcycles that they never rode. He folded the decal over the card, pressed the sides together and dropped it in the instant noodle cup, then pushed it down with the corn-plastic chopsticks. The background chatter got quiet and multiple employees raised their heads prairie-dog like. Several members of the company security detail were looking through Tran’s cubicle. Geoff, the brush-cut ex-cop security guard for this building was standing in the aisle attempting to look like he mattered to the operation as the more polished and definitely better paid detail carefully boxed the contents of Tran’s cubicle. Falstaff picked up his phone and noodle container and started walking towards an exit away from the commotion. Geoff noticed and walked briskly after him. As Falstaff walked out of the building, Geoff called out his real name, then jogged behind him, puffing his half a size too small corporate logo’d golf shirt. Ironed golf shirt. Falstaff heard Geoff behind him, but decided to ignore him. Geoff was a blue-badged contractor, safely ignored. Normally. Geoff ran in front of him and blocked his path to the parking garage. “You wouldn’t happen to know where Tran is, would you? I’ve seen you with him ” Falstaff tapped on his white badge. “You’re not my real dad. You can’t tell me what to do” Falstaff squeezed past him into the parking garage’s doorway. Geoff glared at him while Falstaff got in his car and put the noodle carton in the fancy retracting cupholder. He started his car and drove off as calmly as he could manage. Despite his attempt at seeming indifferent, his mind was racing. He attempted to make good time without getting attention. Luckily, silver Porsches were a cliché and therefore almost invisible in the Valley. Twenty minutes later, he was in his mid-grade two bedroom apartment overlooking the parking lot. His cat, Hank, greeted him with a raised head and half open eyes. Falstaff gave the cat some perfunctory petting, while trying to sequence the next few tasks. He went to the refrigerator in the kitchen, carrying the ramen cup in one hand. He selected a can of energy drink and thought for a second. His smartwatch and phone went in the freezer. Fishing the wrapped memory card out of the cup, he picked up the can and walked to his couch, where a bestickered high end laptop rested. Debating between speed and security, he turned off networking on his laptop, then inserted the card into the laptop gingerly, mounting it read-only in case Tran left something aggressive on the card. Huh. A couple really large encrypted files. And seven smaller files with long filenames of seemingly random numbers and letters. He ejected the card and gingerly placed it on the arm of the couch. The file names were bitcoin addressses. A lookup showed a total value of almost $600 million in value there. The files themselves were encrypted. Falstaff stared at the wall for a minute or two, then realized that Tran had decided to quit and take an unauthorized retirement bonus from their shared employer. Enough money to kill for. Who knew about this, and more importantly, who knew Falstaff had the key? Tran did. Perhaps his gangster friends knew. He pulled his phone out of the freezer. A few project related emails and three MomTalk direct messages. Heather:??? Heather:Where y’at? Heather:I have investors. They’re quite insistent. They’re on their way to you. It was time to go. Now. Falstaff put the laptop down and ran to his bedroom. He pawed through a closet and pulled out the giant duffel he used to carry two week’s laundry from his grad student apartment to the cheaper off-campus laundromat. He quickly shoved a variety of clothes, some scuffed hiking boots and some corporate branded technical outdoors gear into it. Behind a shelf, he found a long, antiquated Russian bolt-action rifle and a few paper-wrapped boxes of bullets. It wasn’t the firearm someone on the run would want, but it’s what he had. It went into the duffle bag, which he dragged into the living room. Hank jumped down and inspected the bag. “Hank, I’ll hook you up in a second” A quick scour of the kitchen and Falstaff had two thick trashbags and a box of water jugs with his current employer’s old logo on them, which he emptied into the sink and turned on the faucet. As the sink filled, he filled the trashbags with whatever looked useful- tools, hobby electronics, his laptop and cat food. He pulled out a fat stack of cash from the bottom of his drug stash box. He contemplated forced sobriety, then carefully closed the box and put it in the bag, along with the cash. Don’t change everything at once, he thought. Now isn’t the time to risk sobriety. Falstaff rummaged around in the hall closet and dug out a bright pink cat carrier and stuffed Hank into it, then turned to the overflowing sink in his kitchen. He opened and filled the bottles in what he hoped was an efficient use of time, then pushed them back into the box. His phone buzzed again. He contemplated throwing it back in the freezer, then thought better of it, shoving it and the watch back in his pocket. Hank started meowing. “We’re not going to the vet today, dude. Shut it for now” Falstaff looked out his window. Typical traffic. Typical parking lot. A few charging stations, a fence and tents on the other side. He opened the window and threw the bags into the bushes below. He picked up Hank’s carrier, his laptop and looked at the box of water bottles. Wait. Stop. Think. Breathe. Tran’s card. A minute of searching found where he left it on the couch. He stuck that in his pocket, then ran out of his apartment. He considered the elevator, then decided on the stairs as they were closer to the bags and his car. A few minutes of pushing and shoving had the trash bags in the front trunk , the oversized duffle in the passenger seat and Hank’s carrier seat belted in the tiny back seat. He spun the tires and entered the flow of traffic, such as it was. He looked at his phone. More people seemed to want a response. Ignoring them, he found the closest florist’s shop and fifteen minutes later, pulled into the strip mall that contained it. A few minutes later, he was in possession of three “Birthday Balloon Extravaganzas”, finishing off the shop’s tank of helium and a bit of Falstaff’s cash. He tied the strings around his smartwatch and let it rise and drift past the confines of the parking lot. The hastily constructed wad of tape and ribbon connecting his phone to the other two Extravaganzas generated a more labored flight, but eventually it drifted away. He looked into the shop’s camera and flipped it the bird as he left and jumped back in his car. Soon he was back on the road, relaxing with his elbow out the window. Despite the stop and go traffic, he felt safe enough to relax and make longer range plans. Even Hank had settled down for the moment. The hot air felt less oppressive somehow. He contemplated the right set of music for an escape from civilization, trying on a few genres to decide. The screen also showed that the freeway was less than a quarter mile on the right and traffic would be light. Good. Then he looked again at the screen and thought about antennas. His radio talked to the cell tower, which talked to the Internet. Every application knew where he was. Which meant Tran’s investors or their ex-employer could know as well. One hand on the wheel, he looked around for something to pull the radio out of the dashboard. Hank meowed. “You have an idea? No? Please be quiet” Rummaging around in the glove box, he noticed an old folding knife. Falstaff slowly pried the radio from the dashboard while occasionally looking up at the tailgate of a modern SUV ahead of him. Realizing there was a rear-facing camera on the SUV staring at him, he slid down below the dash as best he could. A few more stop and go cycles and the radio was free of the dash. He unplugged cables by feel, but one took his attention away from the road while he pried at it with his knife He was distracted by a horn blast by his ear. Another SUV was forcing itself into his lane while the driver gesticulated at him. Falstaff reciprocated by waving angrily at him, knife still in hand. The driver of the SUV held the horn down, angering Falstaff enough to open the window and throw the now free radio at the noise. Feeling the embarrassment, he jerked the wheel to the right and accelerated into the bicycle lane with a chirp of tires and howl from the engine behind him. A minute later, he was on the highway, quickly leaving Silicon Valley. He hoped to make the Nevada line before anyone figured out what he was doing.
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
This post was inspired by the video “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on Craig Wright”. Oh, wait. Sorry. “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on 15th November Bitcoin Cash Upgrade”. Not sure how I mixed those two up. To get it out of the way first and foremost: I have nothing but utmost respect for Roger Ver. You have done more than just about anyone to bring Bitcoin to the world, and for that you will always have my eternal gratitude. While there are trolls on both sides, the crucifixion of Bitcoin Jesus in the past week has been disheartening to see. As a miner, I respect his decision to choose the roadmap that he desires. It is understandable that the Bitcoin (BCH) upgrade is causing a clash of personalities. However, what has been particularly frustrating is the lack of debate around the technical merits of Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin SV. The entire conversation has now revolved around Craig Wright the individual instead of what is best for Bitcoin Cash moving forward. Roger’s video did confirm something about difference of opinions between the Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV camps. When Roger wasn’t talking about Craig Wright, he spent a portion of his video discussing how individuals should be free to trade drugs without the intervention of the state. He used this position to silently attack Craig Wright for allegedly wanting to control the free trade of individuals. This appears to confirm what Craig Wright has been saying: that DATASIGVERIFY can be used to enable widely illegal use-cases of transactions, and Roger’s support for the ABC roadmap stems from his personal belief that Bitcoin should enable all trade regardless of legal status across the globe. Speaking for myself, I think the drug war is immoral. I think human beings should be allowed to put anything they want in their own bodies as long as they are not harming others. I live in the United States and have personally seen the negative consequences of the drug war. This is a problem. The debasement of our currency and theft at the hands of central banks is a separate problem. Bitcoin was explicitly created to solve one of these problems. Roger says in his video that “cryptocurrencies” were created to enable trade free from government oversight. However, Satoshi Nakamoto never once said this about Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto was explicitly clear, however, that Bitcoin provided a solution to the debasement of currency.
“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 02/11/2009
As we’ve written previously, the genesis block is often cited as a criticism of the 2008 bailout. However, the content of the article outlines that the bailout had already occurred. The article reveals that the government was poised to go a step further by buying up the toxic bank assets as part of a nationalization effort! In this scenario, according to the Times, "a 'bad bank' would be created to dispose of bad debts. The Treasury would take bad loans off the hands of troubled banks, perhaps swapping them for government bonds. The toxic assets, blamed for poisoning the financial system, would be parked in a state vehicle or 'bad bank' that would manage them and attempt to dispose of them while 'detoxifying' the main-stream banking system." The article outlines a much more nightmarish scenario than bank bailouts, one that would effectively remove any element of private enterprise from banking and use the State to seize the bank's assets. The United States is progressively getting to a point where cannabis can be freely traded and used without legal repercussion. As a citizen, each election has given me the opportunity to bring us closer to enacting that policy at a national level. However, I have never had the ability to have a direct impact on preventing the debasement of the United States dollar. The dollar is manipulated by a “private” organization that is accountable to no one, and on a yearly basis we are given arbitrary interest rates that I have no control over. The government uses its arbitrary control over the money supply to enable itself to spend trillions of dollars it doesn’t have on foreign wars. Roger Ver has passionately argued against this in multiple videos available on the internet. This is what Bitcoin promised to me when I first learned about it. This is what makes it important to me. When the Silk Road was shut down, Bitcoin was unaffected. Bitcoin, like the US dollar, was just a tool that was used for transactions. There is an inherent danger that governments, whether you like it or not, would use every tool at their disposal to shut down any system that enabled at a protocol level illegal trade. They, rightfully or wrongfully, did this with the Silk Road. Roger’s video seems to hint that he thinks Bitcoin Cash should be an experiment in playing chicken with governments across the world about our right to trade freely without State intervention. The problem is that this is a vast underestimation of just how quickly Bitcoin (BCH) could be shut down if the protocol itself was the tool being used for illegal trade instead of being the money exchanged on top of illegal trade platforms. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Roger’s philosophy on what “cryptocurrencies” should be. However, I know what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is simply hard, sound money. That is boring to a lot of those in the “cryptocurrency” space, but it is the essential tool that enables freedom for the globe. It allows those in Zimbabwe to have sound currency free from the 50 billion dollar bills handed out like candy by the government. It allows those of us in the US to be free from the arbitrary manipulation of the Fed. Hard, sound, unchanging money that can be used as peer to peer digital cash IS the killer use case of Bitcoin. That is why we are here building on top of Bitcoin Cash daily. When Roger and ABC want to play ball with governments across the globe and turn Bitcoin into something that puts it in legal jeopardy, it threatens the value of my bitcoins. Similar to the uncertainty we go through in the US every year as we await the arbitrary interest rates handed out by the Fed, we are now going to wait in limbo to see if governments will hold Bitcoin Cash miners responsible for enabling illegal trade at a protocol level. This is an insanely dangerous prospect to introduce to Bitcoin (BCH) so early in its lifespan. In one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s last public posts, he made it clear just how important it was to not kick the hornet’s nest that is government:
“It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 12/11/2010
Why anyone would want to put our opportunity of sound monetary policy in jeopardy to enable illegal trading at a base protocol level is beyond me. I respect anyone who has an anarcho-capitalist ideology. But, please don’t debase my currency by putting it at risk of legal intervention because you want to impose that ideology on the world. We took the time to set up a Q&A with the Bitcoin SV developers Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly. We posted on Reddit and gathered a ton of questions from the “community”. We received insanely intelligent, measured, and sane responses to all of the “attack vectors” proposed against increasing the block size and re-enabling old opcodes. Jonathon Toomim spent what must have been an hour or so asking 15+ questions in the Reddit thread of which we obtained answers to most. We have yet to see him respond to the technical answers given by the SV team. In Roger’s entire video today about the upcoming November fork, he didn’t once mention one reason why he disagrees with the SV roadmap. Instead, he has decided to go on Reddit and use the same tactics that were used by Core against Bitcoin Unlimited back in the day by framing the upcoming fork as “BCH vs BSV”, weeks before miners have had the ability to actually vote. What Bitcoin SV wants to accomplish is enable sound money for the globe. This is boring. This is not glamorous. It is, however, the greatest tool of freedom we can give the globe. We cannot let ideology or personalities change that goal. Ultimately, it won’t. We have been continual advocates for miners, the ones who spend 1000x more investing in the network than the /btc trolls, to decide the future of BCH. We look forward to seeing what they choose on Nov 15th. Roger mentions that it is our right to fork off and create our own chains. While that is okay to have as an opinion, Satoshi Nakamoto was explicit that we should be building one global chain. We adhere to the idea that miners should vote with their hashpower and determine the emergent chain after November 15th.
“It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 11/09/2008
Connor of The BCH Boys
Edit: A clarification. I used the phrase "Bitcoin is boring". I want to clarify that Bitcoin itself is capable of far more than we've ever thought possible, and this statement is one I will be elaborating on further in the future.
Invite to the Reddit 2019 Directory of VPN service providers. In this directory site, we're taking a look at a few of the absolute best business VPN provider on the Internet like ExpressVPN, CyberGhost, IPVanish, Hotspot Shield, Private Internet Access and others. Instead of taking a look at the large range of free suppliers, which often have a lot of limits (and dubious loyalties), we are looking at those suppliers who charge a couple of dollars a month, however put your interests first, instead of those of shadowy marketers and sponsors. We've looked at more than 20 elements including variety of server locations, client software, devoted and vibrant IP, bandwidth caps, security, logging, client support and rate. Let's take a look at each of our suppliers below in a little bit more depth. ExpressVPN Number of IP addresses: 30,000 Number of servers: 3,000+. Number of server locations: 160. Variety of synchronised connections: 5. Country/Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands. 94+ countries. 3 months Free with 1-year strategy. ExpressVPN likewise uses a 30-day money-back guarantee, and has outstanding procedure assistance. While few will utilize PPTP (unless there specify requirements), the extra support of SSTP and L2TP/IPSec might be welcome to some users. We like the quality of their setup guides, and the in-depth details in their Frequently Asked Question. The ExpressVPN got points from us for their support of Bitcoin as a payment technique, and their trustworthy and easy-to-use connection kill switch feature. The company has actually stayed in business because 2009, and has a significant network of fast VPN servers spread throughout 94 nations. Their finest plan is priced at simply $6.67 monthly for an annual plan that includes 3 months complimentary. ExpressVPN's dedication to privacy is a standout feature. SEE ALL EXPRESSVPN PLANS. NordVPN. Number of IP addresses: 5,000. Variety of servers: 5000+ servers. Variety of server locations: 61. Country/Jurisdiction: Panama. 60+ nations. $ 2.99/ month (75% discount rate) for a 3-year plan. NordVPN in-depth review and hands-on screening. NordVPN is among our top-performing VPN companies. They even use a generous simultaneous connection count, with six synchronised connections through their network, where almost everyone else deals five or less. NordVPN's network isn't as big as some of their competitors, so if you're attempting to obfuscate your tracks, you might want a company with more servers. Otherwise, this business is plainly offering a winning offering. Their finest plan is 1-year membership strategy: $6.99 ($ 83.88). While their month-to-month price of $11.95 is at the high-end of the spectrum, their annual price of $83.88 is lower than a lot of our competitors. And yes, they also have a full 30-day refund policy. NordVPN likewise provides a dedicated IP choice, for those looking for a different level of VPN connection. They do provide $2.99/ month (75% discount rate) for a 3-year strategy. SEE ALL NORDVPN PREPARES. cg-22-1. CyberGhost VPN. Number of IP addresses: 2,800. Number of servers: over 3,700 worldwide. Variety of server locations: 115. 24/7 support action. $ 2.75/ month (79% discount) for a 3-year plan. CyberGhost thorough evaluation and hands-on screening. CyberGhost has actually been around because 2011 and has come out strongly as an advocate of "civil rights, a complimentary society, and an uncensored Internet culture." We truly liked how the company specifically showcases, on their Website, how folks usually prevented from accessing such essential services as Facebook and YouTube can bring those services into their lives by means of a VPN. The company has strong Linux assistance, supports VPN through routers, and has a solution for the popular Kodi media player. They mark off all the boxes on procedure support and get congratulations for offering a connection kill switch function, in addition to supporting P2P and BitTorrent in most nations. Still, the few extra dollars deserve it. We liked how the business offers custom-made app security, IPV5 support and DNS, IP, and WebRTC leakage prevention. CyberGhost also picked up points for preserving privacy by not logging connection information. SEE ALL CYBERGHOST VPN PREPARES. ipvanish-300x250usjc. IPVanish VPN. Variety of IP addresses: 40,000+. Variety of servers: 900. Number of server locations: 60. Country/Jurisdiction: United States. $ 4.87/ month (60% discount) for a 1-year strategy. A big win for IPVanish is the reality that the business keeps no logs. Absolutely no. We also like the business's stance towards privacy. They even supply support to EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a not-for-profit at the front lines of securing online personal privacy. An unique feature of IPVanish, and one we're extremely interested by, is the VPN's assistance of Kodi, the open-source media streaming app that was as soon as referred to as XBMC. Any severe media fan has used or constructed Kodi or XBMC into a media player, and the integrated IPVanish Kodi plugin provides access to media worldwide. At $7.50/ month and $58.49 for a year, they're undoubtedly attempting to move you towards their annual program. We awarded the business congratulations for Bitcoin support, and their money-back guarantee. We're a little disappointed that they just allow a 7-day trial, instead of a full 30-days. The company is generous, with five simultaneous connections. We also liked their connection eliminate switch feature, a must for anyone serious about staying confidential while browsing. SEE ALL IPVANISH VPN PREPARES. purelogo. PureVPN. Variety of IP addresses: 300,000. Variety of servers: 2000. Variety of server locations: 180. Country/Jurisdiction: Hong Kong. $ 3.33/ month (70% discount rate) for a 1-year plan. PureVPN does not log connection details. We like that they provide a 30-day refund policy. They got perk points because, essential for a few of our readers, PureVPN supports bitcoin payments and you're going like their fast performance. Also, you can grow with them. If after a long time, you require to scale up to business-level plans, the business has offerings for development. Prices is middle-of-the-road, at $10.95 each month and $35,88 annually. Finally, we like that PureVPN has both Kodi and a Chromebook solution called out right on their Web page. In addition, PureVPN earns the distinction of being the very first VPN service we've seen to totally implement the GDPR. SEE ALL PUREVPN PLANS. strongvpn-logo-1. StrongVPN. Variety of IP addresses: 59,500. Variety of servers: 689. Variety of server places: 70. $ 5.83/ month (42% discount rate) for a 1-year strategy. StrongVPN blasts onto our favorites list with outstanding facilities and good price efficiency. As with our other favorites, StrongVPN has a strong no-logging policy. Since VPN is all about securing your personal privacy, that's a place the savvy VPN service providers can get points. Strong likewise picks up congratulations for its large base of IP addresses, which also helps protect your anonymity. They have a strong collection of servers and around the world locations. For those of you who need a devoted IP, you can get one from the company, however you'll require to contact support to get assist setting it up. Among StrongVPN's greatest strengths is the company's network. They own and operate their entire network infrastructure, which implies they have no externally-dictated limitations on bandwidth or the type of traffic enabled on the network. This gives you the self-confidence that you'll have the ability to power through your work. StrongVPN's monthly price of $10 is in the middle of the pack, however their yearly cost of $69.99 is amongst the most affordable of our contenders. SEE ALL STRONGVPN PLANS. symantec-logo-100268876-large. Norton Secure VPN. Number of countries: 29. Variety of servers: 1500. Variety of server areas: 200. Country/Jurisdiction: US. $ 39.99 for the first 12 months. Symantec, long understood for quality in security items, has a fairly minimal offering in its VPN item. It does not support P2P or BitTorrent, it does not have a kill switch feature, and it does not support Linux, routers or set leading boxes. On the other hand, it's a VPN product from Symantec, a publicly-traded business with a clearly recorded management team. In many software application classifications, this might not be a notable advantage, but in the VPN world, where most companies have shadowy management and impossible-to-track-down ownership structures, it's revitalizing to understand exactly who we're handling and understand through independent sources (the company's annual filing, the SEC, and analyst reports) that the company is reliable and liable. SEE ALL NORTON SECURE VPN PLANS. hotspot. Hotspot Guard. Variety of IP addresses: 50,000. Number of servers: 2500. Number of server places: 26. $ 2.99/ month (77% discount rate) for a 3-year strategy. HotSpot Shield is an item that has actually had some ups and downs in regards to our editorial protection. Back in 2016, they picked up some really favorable protection based upon founder David Gorodyansky remarks about protecting user personal privacy. Then, in 2017, a personal privacy group implicated the company of spying on user traffic, an accusation the company flatly denies. Lastly, just this year, ZDNet uncovered a flaw in the company's software that exposed users. Thankfully, that was repaired right away. So what are we to make from HotSpot Guard? Frankly, the debate caused us to drop them from our directory for a while. However they approached us, made a strong case for their ongoing dedication to privacy, and we chose to give them another chance. Here's the good news. They use one of the very best money-back warranty we have actually seen for VPN services, a complete 45-days. They support Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android, along with plugins for Chrome and Firefox. They also support routers and media players (but not Linux). And, as a reward, they have a connection kill switch feature. The business does not support P2P or BitTorrent-- and they also don't support the OpenVPN. Every other supplier does, but HotSpot Shield limits its protocol assistance to L2TP/IPSec and something they call Hydra, an enhancement of the transport protocol. Overall, the company did impress us with their attention to personal privacy. They have actually a released personal privacy canary. They likewise informed us, "We have actually integrated in malware, phishing and spam security. Our dedication to our users is that Hotspot Guard will never ever keep, log, or share your real IP address.". SEE ALL HOTSPOT GUARD PLANS. hidemyass300x250usjc. Conceal My Ass. Number of IP addresses: 3,106. Number of servers: 830. Variety of server locations: 280. Country/Jurisdiction: UK. $ 2.99/ month for 3-year strategy. We have to provide these folks an extra shout-out just for the name of their service. The company has a strong network with an excellent selection of protocols supported. While they have a comprehensive (and really plainly written set of policy documents), the company clearly permits P2P and gushes. We like how HMA provides assistance on a wide variety of devices consisting of video game consoles. We gave them kudos for bitcoin support, and their outstanding money-back guarantee. They did make us frown a bit since they do log connection data. They also use five synchronised connections. While their monthly pricing of $11.52 is at the high end of the spectrum, their yearly rates is competitive at $78.66 for a full year. SEE ALL CONCEAL MY ASS PLANS. gf-logo-300x250-wht-720. VyprVPN Solutions. Variety of IP addresses: 200,000+. Variety of servers: 700+. Variety of server locations: 70+. Country/Jurisdiction: Switzerland. 30-Day Cash Back Guarantee. $ 2.99/ month for 3-year strategy. VyprVPN has the largest bank of IP addresses of any of the services we have actually taken a look at. The business provides a wide range of procedures, including its own high-performance Chameleon connection procedure. We like that the company provides a connection kill switch feature and, for those who require it, there's a choice to get a dedicated IP address. VyprVPN is a standout in their effort to offer privacy, and ward off censorship. When China began its program of deep package VPN assessment, Golden Frog's VyperVPN service added scrambled OpenVPN packets to keep the traffic streaming. At $9.95 for a month's service, and $80.04 for a year, the service is a good deal. SEE ALL VYPRVPN PREPARES. private-internet-access-ad-300x250. Personal Web Access. Variety of IP addresses: N/A. Variety of servers: 3,252. Number of server places: 37. Country/Jurisdiction: United States. Mentioning rate, if you desire a strong VPN service provider and you want the lowest yearly rate anywhere, Private Web Access is the location to go. At $6.95 a month, their regular monthly charge is the second least expensive of our choices, however at $39.95 per year, Private Internet Access beats even the second most affordable annual price by a complete Jackson (a $20 expense). The company does not launch details on the variety of IP addresses offered, but at 3,252, their server count is more than any of our other choices. These folks have been around given that 2010, and do not log anything. They supply a generous five connections, a connection kill switch feature, and some excellent online documentation and security assistance. Our one dissatisfaction is that their refund policy is 7-days rather of 30, however you can definitely get a feel for their exceptional efficiency in the area of a week. SEE ALL PERSONAL INTERNET ACCESS PREPARES. torguard-300x250. TorGuard. Variety of IP addresses: N/A. Number of servers: 1,600. Variety of server places: 50. Country/Jurisdiction: United States. Despite the fact that the business doesn't launch the number of IP addresses it supports, TorGuard didn't disappoint. In addition to standard VPN services, TorGuard uses a wide array of additional services, depending upon your personal privacy requires. Just like our other favorites, TorGuard keeps no logs whatsoever. They have a full suite of protocol support, so no matter how you want to connect, you can have your choice. We likewise like the active blog site the company keeps. It's relevant and intriguing to anybody with Web security concerns. While TorGuard only offers a 7-day return policy, it's enough time for you to be able to decide if you're pleased. The monthly rate of $9.99 is practically at the middle of the range, but the yearly fee of $59.99 is a deal compared to practically all our other competitors. SEE ALL TORGUARD PLANS. buffered-logo-300-250-1-1. Buffered VPN. Variety of IP addresses: 11,000. Number of servers: 800. Variety of server locations: 46. Country/Jurisdiction: Gibraltar. Buffered VPN doesn't disclose much about the size of its network, however the 30-day refund ensure suggests that you can take their service for a test drive and really get a feel for how well it carries out for you. The business distressed us due to the fact that they do keep some connection information. They cheered us up, though, due to their client support, limitless bandwidth, and generous number of simultaneous sessions permitted. The company is reasonably new, established in 2013. It's based in Europe, so those who choose an EU-based business might choose Buffered. We like how Buffered has made a strong dedication to Web liberty, and an equally strong dedication to supplying quality customer support. At $12.99 monthly and $99.00 for a year of service, they do not provide the least costly plan, but we do suggest providing a shot. SEE ALL BUFFERED VPN PLANS. goose. Goose VPN. Variety of IP addresses: 8. Variety of servers: 8. Number of server locations: 39. I needed to know why Goose VPN was so named. My very first order of business was to connect to the company's co-founder and ask. Geese, I was told, make exceptional guard animals. There are records of guard geese providing the alarm in ancient Rome when the Gauls assaulted. Geese have been utilized to secure an US Air Defense Command base in Germany and a brewery in Scotland. It's clear that the goose is an ideal mascot for a service that's suggested to guard your digital communications. And so, we have Goose VPN. Goose VPN has a number of standout features. Initially, you can have a limitless variety of synchronised connections (or gadgets) using the VPN at once. Second, if your bandwidth requirements are 50 GB or less per month, you can register for $2.99/ month, the most inexpensive monthly rate we have actually seen. If you desire unlimited bandwidth, the company definitely is pushing you towards purchasing a year at a time. Their regular monthly cost for unrestricted bandwidth is a middle-of-the-road $12.99/ month, but if you invest $59.88 for a year's service, you'll find it's the second least expensive by-the-year price of the services we have actually examined. Goose supplies all the typical clients, including iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows, and adds assistance for routers, Android TELEVISION, and Linux. They are dealing with a kill switch function, which may even be up and running by the time you read this evaluation. The company also provides 24/7 ticket-based support. Ducks quack, geese honk, and swans whoop (we know, because we looked it up). Overall, particularly provided the limitless connections and low yearly rate, we believe Goose VPN is something to beep about. SEE ALL GOOSEVPN PLANS. surfshark-logo. Surfshark. Variety of servers: 800+. Variety of server locations: 50. Country/Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands. While Surfshark's network is smaller than some, they make it up on functions. Let's start off with the greatest win they provide: endless device assistance. If you want to run your whole home or office on Surfshark's VPN, you don't have to worry about the number of gadgets you have on or linked. They also use anti-malware, advertisement stopping and tracker blocking as part of their software application. The company has a solid variety of app support, running on Mac, Windows, iOS, Android, FireTV, and through routers. We particularly like the feature that permits you to whitelist certain apps and websites to instantly bypass the VPN. For some service usage, this can be seriously crucial. Surfshark also offers three special modes developed for those who wish to get around limitations and more thoroughly hide their online footsteps. Camouflage Mode masks your VPN activity so your ISP does not know you're utilizing a VPN. MultiHop dives your connection through multiple nations to hide your trail. Lastly, NoBorders Mode "allows [you] to successfully use Surfshark in restrictive areas." Just be careful. Doing any of these three things might be illegal in your nation and could lead to really extreme penalties. For a year plan, Surfshark can be found in very close to much of the other full-featured VPN suppliers, at $71.88 for the first year. Take care, because it looks like that will jump to $143.40 after your very first year is up. Month-by-month plans are $11.95. Their finest deal is $1.99 a month, for their 24 month strategy (you pay $47.76 up front). Absolutely benefit from their generous 30-day trial to choose if you like this service (and possibly set a reminder in 23 months to see if you can talk them into a continued discount rate). SEE ALL SURFSHARK PREPARES. WEBROOT LOGO. Webroot WiFi Security. Country/Jurisdiction: United States. Beginning rate: $39.99. As VPN services go, Webroot WiFi Security is relatively bare-bones-- but it's also low-cost. Starting at $39.99 for a year of VPN service, you can get a package with both VPN and Webroot's antivirus software for $69.98 for your very first year. Sadly, both of these costs bump up after the first year. VPN security leaps to $59.99 and the package jumps to $119.98. While we praise the combination of VPN and anti-viruses in one package, Webroot has had a troubled few years. In 2017, it wrongly flagged Windows' system files as malicious. In 2018, a kernel exploit was found in the business's Mac anti-virus client. In 2019, the company was acquired by backup company Carbonite. If you're only safeguarding a couple of gadgets and wish to conserve loan, Webroot's VPN might be for you. That $39.99 rate is for as much as three devices. If you wish to protect 5 devices, you'll require to pay $59.99 for a year and $79.99 after that. Honestly, as soon as you get in that price variety, there are products with more abilities readily available. Webroot's VPN is also light on protocols. While they do link utilizing IKEv2 by default, they likewise provide L2TP and the very old and very insecure PPTP protocol (although they do warn that it's not "as" protect. Another concern for those of you who need deep security is that the business does log both which VPN server location you link to and the nation you connect from. So who is Webroot's VPN for? If all you wish to do is protect your Wi-Fi connection while browsing in your local cafe or at a hotel, you only require to connect a couple of devices, and you wish to save money, this is a convenient alternative. However if you require a major VPN with deep capabilities, you'll want to look elsewhere in this directory. Likewise, we didn't discover any reference to a money back warranty, so check with their pre-sales and support prior to purchasing. SEE ALL WEBROOT WIFI SECURITY PLANS. VPN FAQ Since we're living in a connected world, security and privacy are critical to ensure our personal safety from nefarious hacks. From online banking to communicating with coworkers on a daily basis, we're now frequently transferring data on our computers and smartphones. It's extremely important to find ways of securing our digital life and for this reason, VPNs have become increasingly common. What Is a VPN? A virtual private network (VPN) is a technology that allows you to create a secure connection over a less-secure network between your computer and the internet. It protects your privacy by allowing you to anonymously appear to be anywhere you choose. A VPN is beneficial because it guarantees an appropriate level of security and privacy to the connected systems. This is extremely useful when the existing network infrastructure alone cannot support it. For example, when your computer is connected to a VPN, the computer acts as if it's also on the same network as the VPN. All of your online traffic is transferred over a secure connection to the VPN. The computer will then behave as if it's on that network, allowing you to securely gain access to local network resources. Regardless of your location, you'll be given permission to use the internet as if you were present at the VPN's location. This can be extremely beneficial for individuals using a public Wi-Fi. Therefore, when you browse the internet while on a VPN, your computer will contact the website through an encrypted VPN service connection. The VPN will then forward the request for you and forward the response from the website back through a secure connection. VPNs are really easy to use, and they're considered to be highly effective tools. They can be used to do a wide range of things. The most popular types of VPNs are remote-access VPNs and site-to-site VPNs. What is a remote-access VPN? A remote-access VPN uses public infrastructure like the internet to provide remote users secure access to their network. This is particularly important for organizations and their corporate networks. It's crucial when employees connect to a public hotspot and use the internet for sending work-related emails. A VPN client, on the user's computer or mobile device connects to a VPN gateway on the company's network. This gateway will typically require the device to authenticate its identity. It will then create a network link back to the device that allows it to reach internal network resources such as file servers, printers and intranets, as if it were on the same local network. It usually relies on either Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) to secure the connection. However, SSL VPNs can also be used to supply secure access to a single application, rather than an entire internal network. Some VPNs also provide Layer 2 access to the target network; these will require a tunneling protocol like PPTP (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol) or L2TP (Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol) running across the base IPsec connection. What is a site-to-site VPN? This is when the VPN uses a gateway device to connect to the entire network in one location to a network in another location. The majority of site-to-site VPNs that connect over the internet use IPsec. Rather than using the public internet, it is also normal to use career multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) clouds as the main transport for site-to-site VPNs. VPNs are often defined between specific computers, and in most cases, they are servers in separate data centers. However, new hybrid-access situations have now transformed the VPN gateway in the cloud, typically with a secure link from the cloud service provider into the internal network. What is a mobile VPN? A traditional VPN can affect the user experience when applied to wireless devices. It's best to use a mobile VPN to avoid slower speeds and data loss. A mobile VPN offers you a high level of security for the challenges of wireless communication. It can provide mobile devices with secure access to network resources and software applications on their wireless networks. It's good to use when you're facing coverage gaps, inter-network roaming, bandwidth issues, or limited battery life, memory or processing power. Mobile VPNs are designed and optimized to ensure a seamless user experience when devices are switching networks or moving out of coverage. It generally has a smaller memory footprint, and because of that, it also requires less processing power than a traditional VPN. Therefore, it enables your applications to run faster while the battery pack is able to last longer. A Mobile VPN is a worthwhile tool to have since it increases privacy, user satisfaction and productivity, while also reducing unforeseen support issues caused by wireless connectivity problems. The increasing usage of mobile devices and wireless connectivity make it more important to ensure that your data is being transferred through a secure network. It will allow you to access the internet, while staying safe behind a firewall that protects your privileged information. Who needs a VPN? Individuals that access the internet from a computer, tablet or smartphone will benefit from using a VPN. A VPN service will always boost your security by encrypting and anonymizing all of your online activity. Therefore, both private and business users can benefit from using a VPN. Communications that happen between the VPN server and your device are encrypted, so a hacker or website spying on you wouldn't know which web pages you access. They also won't be able to see private information like passwords, usernames and bank or shopping details and so on. Anyone that wants to protect their privacy and security online should use a VPN. How to choose a VPN Service? There's a vast range of VPN servers on the internet. Some are free, but the best ones require a monthly subscription. Before you decide to download a VPN, make sure you consider these factors for understanding a VPN: Cost - VPNs aren't too pricey, but they vary from vendor to vendor. If your main concern is price, then go with something inexpensive, or free - like Spotflux Premium VPN or AnchorFree HotSpot Shield Elite. By all means, try a free server but they do have a few drawbacks since they attract a lot of users. Free servers are often slower, and since most are ad-supported, they place adverts on the online pages you access. Others can even limit the speed of your connection, as well as your online time or amount of data transferred. It's also important to note that leading VPN providers such as NordVPN and Privacy Internet Access offer stronger security features to ensure you're digitally safe. When selecting a paid VPN service, always be sure to check which countries it operates servers in. Reliability - Select a VPN that is reliable and read the reviews to make sure that it's capable of protecting you by providing you with sufficient online privacy. High security - An effective VPN will have the following security features: 128-bit encryption, anonymous DNS servers and an absence of connection logs. Are there any bandwidth limits? This can often be linked to price; paying more will generally provide more bandwidth with faster internet access. Are apps for Android, iOS phones and tablets available? Apps for Android and iOS devices are also vulnerable, so make sure your VPN server can support them. To ensure privacy, you want to make sure you have a VPN that doesn't store online logs. Some servers provide virus and spyware protection, and features like that can significantly increase your online safety. Using a no-logs VPN service will provide you with a higher degree of security. It can protect you from blanket government surveillance and prevent your internet service provider from knowing your online activity. Using a VPN for Netflix and other forbidden treasures Online streaming services like Netflix and Hulu have been making it difficult for foreign users to access their content in other countries. Many people can get around region restrictions by using a VPN service to route your traffic through another country. It can be quite simple to watch Netflix and other restricted goodies. You'll have to use a VPN service that allows you to get a unique IP address. This can often be available for an additional fee. Look for VPN services that offer a "dedicated IP address", "dedicated IP", or "static IP." Additional features like these will always allow you to access content from Netflix through a VPN service. This is by far the easiest way to access your forbidden apps since there's no specific way to block VPN traffic. A lot of people started using a VPN to evade geo-restrictions. But despite its forbidden benefits to users outside the US, a VPN is a great tool that can protect you and enhance your online experience over the internet by providing you with sufficient security and privacy. When it comes to selecting the best VPN, you have plenty of choices. There are many cost-effective VPN options, and all of them will vary in monthly offerings. Choosing the best VPN is easier once you narrow down the competition. The best indication of a good VPN service provider is that they have the right security and the right support in place for you.
The Lightning network designers should have heeded Satoshi's example, and followed the proven process to develop a new software system. Namely:
Write down the real world problem that the system is meant to solve.
Describe all essential parts of the system, in enough detail to be sure that they can be implemented and will handle the expected demand.
Verify the system with pencil and paper, checking that it is robust against all possible accidents, attacks, and usage scenarios. If any problems are detected, go back to step 2.
Implement a prototype of the system and test it with random data and computer-simulated users. If any problems are detected, go back to step 2.
Write a paper with essential information from items 1--4 that will allow others to evaluate and possibly re-implement it themselves.
Prepare a downloadable version of the prototype, with minimal user documentation. Announce the paper and implementation on a suitable developers forum and ask for alpha testers (people who are willing to help you debug the system, knowing that it probably has fatal bugs). If they find any problems, go back to step 2.
After alpha testing has not uncovered any fatal bugs for a while, announce the system to a wider audience and ask for beta-testers (people who are willing to put the system to real use, knowing that it may still have some subtle bugs). If they find any problems, go back to step 2.
After enough beta-testing has occurred to inspire confidence in the system, package it properly and announce it for use by the general public, and for inclusion in other people's projects.
The biggest problem with the Lightning Network is that its proponents behave as if they are already at Step 8, when in fact they have not even done Step 1 yet. For item 1, Satoshi wrote in the whitepaper
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
One may debate whether the problems he described in the first paragraph are worth solving, and whether the approach that he stated in the second paragraph is the best way to solve them. But those two paragraphs are good enough for Step 1. (In fact, I suspect that his true goal was to solve a computer science problem that had been open for 25 years, namely how to implement a system like described paragraph 2; and paragraph 1 was only a good excuse, rather than his true motivation. But that does not matter, really.) The first big mistake of the Lightning Network's developers is that they skipped Step 1. They never identified the real world problem that the LN was supposed to solve; and, for the life of me, I cannot guess what it is. Maybe the true motivation for the development of the Payment Channel (PC) was purely technological (like Satoshi's probably was); namely, to make bitcoin usable for micro-payments. But micro-payments themselves are a missing solution that has been in search of a real world problem for more than 25 years. Indeed, the PC is a good example of what happens when one skips Step 1. A PC only allows efficient micro-payments after it has been set up. That requires pre-funding of the channel with enough bitcoins to cover the expected maximum sum of the micro-payments, which in turn requires estimating this amount in advance, as well as the maximum duration of the micro-payment stream between the two parties. Channel setup requires a couple of rounds of direct real-time back-and-forth communication between the two parties, and a 10 minute expected (but unbounded) delay for on-chain confirmation. After the end of the stream (which the sender may have to signal to the receiver), the channel must be closed by the receiving party, using a time-sensitive on-chain operation that is subject to unbounded delay, too (hence potential payment loss); and the sender may have his unspent coin balance locked until the predefined expiration date. It is already hard enough to imagine a real-world situation where micro-payments may be the best solution; with all those constraints and encumbrances, it seems quite impossible. The LN has the same strategic problem, with even worse consequences. From the writings of the LN enthusiasts (such as Blockstream and their contractors), I conclude that the true motivation was "make bitcoin usable by millions of people". But that is not a real-world problem: it is only a wish of the bitcoin holders, who expect the price of bitcoin to rise as a result. "Getting more people to use solution X" is never a good choice for Step 1. It is as if Satoshi had set the goal of bitcoin to be "Get thousands of people to use the Hashcash proof of work". Outside of "make bitcoin holders rich", the LN developers and fans have not identified one payment need that the existing systems don't provide but the LN would, and no service that those systems provide that the LN would improve upon. They want to replace VISA by the LN -- but forgot to tell us why. The LN answer for Step 1 cannot include Satoshi's goal, "allow any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party ". Whether the LN will have a few central hubs, or will allow multi-hop payment routing through one or more "home hubs", it will per force have to rely on third parties that, at the very least, can block access between the "two willing parties". The LN developers also skipped though Steps 2--7 and went directly to step 8, announcing their system to the world as if it was a proven reality. Fortunately there is no implementation of the LN available yet, so the damage has been limited to bitcoin planning -- with Blockstream/Core already having decided to eliminate p2p use of the bitcoin network, and turn it into a settlement layer for the LN, adding to it features that the LN is expected to need. But, who cares? The day-traders and newbie "investors", who set the price, do not know anything about the block size war and scaling roadmaps; so the price doesn't care whether the strategies are sound or stupid. Yet. As for Step 2, there are still major building blocks missing in the design off the LN, such as multi-hop payment routing, funding of outgoing hub channels, wallet backup and recovery (since the state of the channel is not recorded in the blockchain), communication protocols, etc.. With such gaps, it is not possible to proceed to Step 3 and beyond. In Step 2, in particular, the LN designers would have to choose a cryptocurrency (or a set of cryptocurrencies) for use in the system. They could use bitcoin, or any of the existing altcoins, a clean fork of bitcoin (mineable by the current bitcoin miners, or not), or a new altcoin created specifically for the system. The currency used in the prototype would not have to be the same as that used in the beta-test version or in the final system. Anyway, the choice would have to be carefully justified by the goal set in step 1 and technical or economic considerations. With all its known problems (such as 10-minute turnaround, highly volatile price, highly concentrated development, mining, and wealth distributions), bitcoin would seem to be the least adequate choice for that role. In order to perform the validation of Step 3 (and to set up the test scripts in Step 4), the designers must provide numbers in step 2. In particular, at some point the system is expected to have 10 million users. At that stage, the usage patterns should be representative of the final, steady-state situation. The designers should guess at least one possible (if not plausible) statistical description of that "LN economy", with distributions of channels per user, channel fundings and timeouts, payment demand between user pairs, on-chain and off-chain transaction fees, etc.. Note that these distributions are long-tailed and asymmetric: there will be merchants with millions of customers but only hundreds of suppliers and employees, and companies with a million employees and only one client; users with 100'000 BTC hoards and users who live from hand to mouth on low weekly salaries. Those numbers are needed, for instance, to decide whether the LN can have a decentralized topology, or will be forced to have 2--3 hubs that will be forced intermediaries between all user pairs.
Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (562 points, 262 comments)
I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (401 points, 166 comments)
You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1420 points, 433 comments)
2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
2018 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
1215 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS? A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream. We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%? A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network. Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future? A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night). I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second. Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned. Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely? A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time. When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before. Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks. A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful. I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good. I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them. Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem? A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things. We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe? A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise. My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people. The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create. “Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever. It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary? A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else. I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers. And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork? A: Lightning does not need a hard fork. It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly. I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream? A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached. A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015. The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents. I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit. Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests? A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically. He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time. Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy? A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things. Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say. A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer. The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning. Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan? A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy. Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all. A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks. And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing). I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features). I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions: Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling? A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing. Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team? A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it. Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic. The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two. I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj. Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this? A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions. The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects. Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners. A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning. Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners. Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed. A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been. I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018. Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split? A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain. Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.? A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic? A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap. We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms? A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down. I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io… And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them! I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"? A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.” As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn? A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now? Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks. A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful. I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser. In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next. As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not. Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
Hi Gavin, I have some questions: Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community? A: 1) Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects. Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic. Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out). Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently. Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else? A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project. Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin? A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible. Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be? A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have. Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times. Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future? A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong. Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you! A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture. I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen! Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin. A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood. 15. satoshi Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions? A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download. The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
I'm on board with classic
I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions: Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high. Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners. Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting? *The questioner further explained his concern. Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem. A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin). Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization? A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now. And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time. Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa? A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal. I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design. Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)? A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not. Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap? A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else. Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price? A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project. Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business. Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing. Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info? A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions. Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ? A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that. Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core? A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin? A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
With a programmed block size cap, relatively slow transaction times and other fundamental limitations, Bitcoin requires scaling efforts to reach its full potential. As Bitcoin’s most infamous block size scaling debate, the SegWit chronicles have much to teach us about the technology’s history and potential. And, beyond the Lightning Network, many other scaling projects have emerged to add ... The site boasts many other metrics, including info relative to the bitcoin block size debate. Sites Dedicated to Bitcoin Cash. While many of the sites and resources above focus on bitcoin cash as well as bitcoin core, there are also plenty of resources especially tailored for analysis of the BCH network and price. The block-size limit debate has taken a turn now that some of Bitcoin’s biggest mining pools are publicly endorsing BIP 100 (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 100) instead of backing a Bitcoin XT blockchain fork. So far, F2Pool, BTCChina, BitFury, KnCMiner, 21 Inc. and several smaller pools have come out in support of this alternative proposal. Combined, this represents well over half of all ... Will Scaling Bitcoin Bring Us to Consensus on the Block Size Debate? by Christie Harkin. September 7, 2015 “There’s a deep rift amongst bitcoin core devs regarding what the purpose of Bitcoin should be,” said Eric Lombrozo, Bitcoin developer and CEO of Ciphrex. “Unfortunately, the fundamental underlying disagreements aren’t being properly addressed … and most of the discussion has ... Three years ago at approximately 2:14 p.m. ET, the first Bitcoin Cash blocks were mined. That day, block 478,558 was the last common block found, and six hours later Viabtc mined the first Bitcoin ...
Bitcoin Q&A: Scaling and the block size debate - YouTube
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 ... Whalepool: Live Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, Markets Trading Stream 24/7/365 WhalePool 28 watching Live now Roger Ver on Why Bitcoin Cash is the Real Bitcoin - Duration: 1:24:39. In this talk in Berlin, Andreas looks at the inner structure of bitcoin and how high-level financial and trust applications are composed from smaller element... The capacity of the bitcoin network is limited by a hard-coded limit inside its protocol. As technology advances, this limit becomes increasingly absurd. When will it be updated to be more ... A talk on the Bitcoin block size debate and a discussion of arguments for both larger and smaller block sizes give by Leonhard Weese on 18 November, 2015 at Tuspark's Causeway Bay location in Hong ...