Bitcoin Wallet Vs Address | CryptoCoins Info Club

These Bitcoin companies already announced their position regarding a potential fork. If you didn't yet, please let your users know where you stand.

A joint statement by 20 exchanges

Including: Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC, Kraken, BTC China, Poloniex, itBit, ShapeShift, bitt and others.
...we have decided to designate the Bitcoin Unlimited fork as BTU (or XBU). The Bitcoin Core implementation will continue to trade as BTC
However, none of the undersigned can list BTU unless we can run both chains independently without incident. Consequently, we insist that the Bitcoin Unlimited community (or any other consensus breaking implementation) build in strong two-way replay protection.
https://www.bitfinex.com/bitcoin_hardfork_statement

Bitgo

We are 100% supportive of the safe, tested SegWit functionality available for activation in core code today and believe it is by far the safest way to gain additional block space in the near term.
Bitcoin Unlimited does not meet the above tests for being a supportable fork today. In fact, it fails all three criteria. Additionally, there are serious problems with “emergent consensus”...
As such, we will not be able to provide support for a hard fork caused by Bitcoin Unlimited in its current form.
https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgos-approach-to-handling-a-hard-fork-71e572506d7d#.y9we2glr2

Bitrated

We cannot responsibly support Bitcoin Unlimited on the Bitrated platform as an altcoin due its lack of hardfork-related safety measures, its inherent re-org instability and its potentially prohibitive operational costs.
Bitrated is technically, financially and logistically unable to safely and reasonably support networks with unbounded block size or with the “emergent consensus” mechanism
In the case of the mainline Bitcoin client adopting an unbounded block size proposal, we will be forced to shut our full-nodes off and cease offering services for the BTC currency.
https://medium.com/@bitrated/bitrateds-position-on-network-splits-and-bitcoin-unlimited-4685c5c3f8e8

Canadian Bitcoin Economic Nodes

We support the activation of Segregated Witness as an immediate solution to Bitcoin scaling and as a fundamental component of a long-term capacity increases roadmap.
Any contentious hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain shall be considered an alternative cryptocurrency (altcoin), regardless of the relative hashing power on the forked chain.
In addition, we believe Emergent Consensus fundamentally alters the nature of Bitcoin by increasing the responsibilities and powers of the Bitcoin miners, disrupting the existing checks and balances system.
https://hackernoon.com/canadian-bitcoin-economic-nodes-unite-against-bitcoin-unlimited-412786fb4bb6

Colu

...we support SegWit, both as an immediate yet cautious increase in block size, and as a first step for solutions like Lightning, which we are already building on.
We clearly recommend that issuers choose Bitcoin Core, as we believe it’s the safest option. For this reason, all hosted infrastructure supplied by us will continue to use Bitcoin Core. We also won’t be able to provide support for other forks.
https://medium.com/colu/on-coins-of-color-and-forks-of-force-1363f3977170#.rsf3njy60

Electrum

I, Thomas Voegtlin, support Segregated Witness as a scaling solution for Bitcoin, and I am opposed to a hard fork initiated by miners running Bitcoin Unlimited.
http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/hardfork.html

Bitsquare

As many of you might have noticed on Twitter, Bitsquare is in clear opposition to BU and I personally consider it not only as a reckless and irresponsible behavior [...] but as a political attack on Bitcoin.
In the rather unlikely event that they really start a hard fork and the even more unlikely event that they would succeed to take over the Bitcoin network and destroy the current version I would either move the main currency to what will be the follower project of the current Bitcoin Core development branch or move to another Altcoin like Monero.
This personal position might explain why I react rather emotional and radical in regards to BU. I experience it not only as a threat for Bitcoin but as a threat to the work I was spending my time the last 3 years.”
https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/how-bitsquare-would-deal-with-a-bu-hard-fork/1780

Poloniex

We will support Bitcoin Core continuously as BTC.
Poloniex agrees that any contentious hard fork must include replay attack protection
https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork

Armory

The Armory developers (goatpig, droark, and achow101) support Segregated Witness as is in its current form, and also support Bitcoin Core. The Armory developers also oppose hard forks that may attack the original chain.
https://github.com/achow101/BitcoinArmory/blob/gh-pages/_posts/2017-3-26-armory-and-hard-forks.md

Bitonic / Bl3p

We will not consider contentious hard forks (without industry-wide consensus) as Bitcoin. Instead we will consider it an alternative cryptocurrency which we will not, out of principle, support.
... we are not financially and technically capable of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited based on the "Emergent Consensus" principle, not for ourselves and not for our customers.
BL3P will, in any case, continue to support the blockchain that is based on the Bitcoin Core software. The bitcoins on this chain will be listed as 'BTC'.
https://bitonic.nl/en/news/121/statement-possible-split-in-bitcoin https://bl3p.eu/news/16/Hard+fork+policy+

GreenAddress

GreenAddress does not support contentious hard forks that risk disenfranchising users, irrespective of hashing power. We believe that such an outcome would create an irreparable precedent that would severely undermine social trust in Bitcoin and potentially set it back for years to come.
https://blog.greenaddress.it/2017/03/27/greenaddress-position-on-contentious-forks/

Blockchainlab Milan

Indispensable prerequisites for a hard fork to be not contentious are:
  1. Clear activation and on-chain coordination processes.
  2. Long grace period which reflects a pessimistic and conservative assessment of node upgrade capacity.
  3. Strong 2-way replay protection which does not place excessive burden on the users.
  4. Wipe-out protection, meaning that the hard fork must be permanent.
  5. Must be entirely open-source at all times of the development and implementation process.
  6. Must be peer-reviewed and tested extensively over a sustained period of time.
Currently Bitcoin Unlimited is not in compliance with any of points outlined.
https://medium.com/@BHBnetwork/bhb-statement-on-proposed-hard-fork-7b8f82da05e5

Coins.ph

Coins.ph supports a single version of Bitcoin, which is Bitcoin Core (BTC)
we consider any hard fork which is rolled out without industry-wide consensus, and therefore splits the network, to be an altcoin, not Bitcoin itself. This is irrespective of how much hash power the forked coin may have. Ours is only one voice of many, but this is entirely consistent with the view currently taken by the economic majority of Bitcoin exchanges.
http://blog.coins.ph/post/158960095064/how-coinsph-will-handle-a-bitcoin-fork

BitMEX

In the case of a fork, we support the plan as proposed by Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC et al. It will not be possible for any exchange, including BitMEX, to support both chains separately. For these reasons, BU will not be listed or used as a deposit/withdrawal currency until replay protection is implemented and BU is not at risk of a blockchain reorganization if the Core chain becomes longer.
https://blog.bitmex.com/a-statement-on-the-possible-bitcoin-unlimited-hard-fork
Edit: adding others that come up in the comments

Coinbase

The only version of Bitcoin supported on the Coinbase platform today is Bitcoin Core, currently represented by the symbol BTC.
We may provide support for Bitcoin Unlimited in the future depending on market conditions and stability of the protocol, but we cannot guarantee whether or when such support may be available. Customers who wish to access both blockchains at the time of the hard fork should withdraw their BTC from Coinbase since we cannot guarantee what will happen during the hard fork or when this access may be available.
If one chain receives an overwhelming majority of support from miners, users, and exchanges, we reserve the right to alter the names of chains or discontinue support for certain chains in the future.
https://blog.coinbase.com/update-for-customers-with-bitcoin-stored-on-coinbase-904dea08ac5f

Shapeshift

If a fork happens (with BU or anything similar in the future), ShapeShift will list it as a new coin (new name, new symbol). This is purely for practical reasons, not a judgement for or against. If the market decides to follow the BU chain, then after enough time, and with enough clarity on the market's decision (ie - not ambiguous), we would refer to that chain as Bitcoin and ShapeShift may reassign the name/ticker.
Hardforking from the main chain doesn't create an altcoin. It creates a decision point, on which every market participate must judge for himself. The outcome of those decisions, unpredictable ahead of time, is a more appropriate declaration of the true Bitcoin than any specific group within. Stated differently, if a majority doesn't get to declare what Bitcoin is, then certainly neither does a minority. It is a choice we're happy leaving to the market, anything else is the exact kind of centralization that Bitcoin was built to resist.
ShapeShift supports SegWit and a HF to larger blocksize, but does not support BU. We are seeing the utility of the Bitcoin network decay with time (while simultaneously becoming more expensive), and SegWit plus a HF to bigger blocks is the most practical and reasonable short and medium term solution.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62dlaw/these_bitcoin_companies_already_announced_theidfluhe4/

Bitrefill

We strongly oppose any attempt of contentious hard forks in Bitcoin. We’re one of the biggest individual bitcoin e-merchants worldwide, processing tens of thousands of Bitcoin tx every month. Fees are a huge issue for us and our users who make many small-value transactions, but [...] hard forking Bitcoin risks destroying everything that makes it unique and working. There are far better solutions for lowering fees. SegWit is currently the best step forward for bitcoin, and we will be using it immediately once it becomes available.
https://twitter.com/bitrefill/status/843604093260222464
submitted by bahatassafus to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

Dev Meeting Notes, 2016 08 22

#namecoin-meeting notes, 2016 08 21 # Present: Jeremy Jonas Brandon Midnightmagic Pigeons Joseph Namecoin Core The wallet name operation bug in Brandon's name tab PR has been isolated by Jeremy. Appears to be a bug in upstream Bitcoin Core (or perhaps Namecoin Core master branch) that has been fixed. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/pull/67#issuecomment-231316792 Whit Jackson submitted a documentation PR for building on OS X. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/pull/97 If anyone can test, please do so! Jonas will test this. Jeremy noticed that Travis CI accidentally flagged our repo as "potential abuse detected". Jeremy contacted Travis CI support and got our account whitelisted. Jonas notices that the Travis CI builds for our 0.13 branch are failing at the moment. Jeremy suggests filing a GitHub issue. Jeremy asked Jonas to submit a PR for Gitian builds for OS X. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/issues/38#issuecomment-236101580 DrHaribo of BitMinter requested that getblocktemplate be re-added to Namecoin Core. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/issues/98 Jeremy points out that since nVersion=4 blocks are nearing the lock-in point, we should deal with this sooner rather than later so that BitMinter doesn't get kicked off the network. Brandon asked on GitHub about how wallet unlocking should be done with the name tab GUI. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/pull/67#issuecomment-240852324 Upon discussion, Brandon currently plans to try using the raw transaction API for this. Daniel submitted a PR to temporarily disable the low-S standardness check. This should improve confirmation times for the old 0.3.80 clients. The check will be restored after AAA activates. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/pull/100 Test reports would be great. Jeremy points out that this needs to be done before nVersion=4 blocks are locked in. Jeremy wonders whether we should cancel plans to release 0.12 as stable, and focus on 0.13 branch. Tentative plan: keep maintaining 0.12 until Bitcoin Core releases v0.13.0; backport the name tab to whatever stable branch exists at the time that it's merged to master. SPV Jeremy's initial PR for Namecoin support has been merged to libdohj. https://github.com/dogecoin/libdohj/pull/18 Jeremy still needs to rebase the bitcoinj-addons code based on the libdohj changes made during review, and then submit a pull request. In the meantime, Jeremy's latest bitcoinj-addons and libdohj code is posted. https://forum.namecoin.org/viewtopic.php?p=16788#p16788 Someone please test it? Jeremy asks if he should post a link on Reddit. Jonas says yes. Jeremy will do so. ncdns Jeremy asked about the old fork of a Conformal library (see previous meeting); Hugo doesn't recall details but thinks it had to do with pre-Namecoin-Core not following spec properly. Hugo would be happy to accept a PR to make it use the current Conformal libs. https://github.com/hlandau/ncdns/issues/12#issue-163964219 Jeremy pointed out that sometime in the future we should fix the Extended Key Usage Critical flag on the dehydrated cert template. Go's standard library doesn't have a built-in way of setting that flag, which is why it's not in the first draft. Jeremy and Ryan can't think of any plausible attacks where it matters. Jeremy suggests a 1.0 BTC bounty for an ncdns NSIS installer. Possibly funded 50/50 by NMDF and a fundraiser. https://forum.namecoin.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2566 Mining Cassini noticed that BTCC and ViaBTC have started mining Namecoin. https://forum.namecoin.org/viewtopic.php?p=16703#p16703 This is good news for mining diversity. F2Pool's share of Namecoin blocks is down to circa 43% as of July 26, 2016. Public Relations Cassini represented us at GETD#4 in Berlin July 22-23. Jeremy mentions that we should think about translation workflow. https://github.com/namecoin/meta/issues/35 Jeremy notes that Bitcoin Core is using Transifex. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin-core/blob/mastedoc/translation_process.md Jeremy says that whatever works for Bitcoin Core, should probably work for us. Midnightmagic concurs. Joseph believes that Armory (post-ATI) is trying Transifex. Brandon asks what the pricing looks like for Transifex. Joseph believes it's gratis for open-source projects. Jeremy notes that Wikipedia confirms this. Jeremy wonders what safeguards are in place on Transifex to reduce risk of malicious translations. Joseph isn't sure. Jeremy points out that the way we organize the list of exchanges doesn't make sense for decentralized exchanges like Bitsquare. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin.org/issues/70 Jeremy suggests listing decentralized exchanges at the top of the list. Jeremy notes that this might annoy the centralized exchanges who pay us for placement, but that this doesn't bother him at all. Midnightmagic concurs. Pigeons mentions that he's seen an increase in Namecoin offers on Bitsquare recently. Jeremy will have a table at the OU CS welcome party on Sept. 9. Let's try to recruit some developers! Brandon asks what the status is of the students from last year. Jeremy is sad to report that the SPV student and the UX student from last year are not participating this semester. Pigeons says a "Namecoin vs Blockstack" FAQ entry would be helpful. Jeremy will work on it. Midnightmagic asks if a meetingbot would be welcome. Jeremy says yes. Midnightmagic will look at setting one up. Funding Jeremy has filed a complaint with Tip4Commit about their usage of CloudFlare CAPTCHAs. https://github.com/tip4commit/tip4commit/issues/300 Tip4Commit has not responded after 25 days. BountySource balance: $5/month from 1 recurring supporter Total funds available: $304 USD Pigeons suggests looking into Patreon. Jeremy notes that they have CloudFlare CAPTCHAs. Jeremy notes that Wikipedia says they take a 5% commision, which is half of BountySource's 10%. Jeremy notes that some free software projects use them currently. https://www.reddit.com/linux/comments/33dp6n/should_open_source_projects_use_patreonkickstartecqkrlkf Jeremy will look into this in more detail later. NMDF incoming funds: 0 mBTC received since 2016 07 03 0 NMC received since 2016 07 03 Pigeons suggests looking into Flattr. Jeremy notes that they have CloudFlare CAPTCHAs. Jeremy notes that Wikipedia says they take a 10% fee (same as BountySource). Jeremy will look into this in more detail later. 
Note: I made a typo in the title of this post on Reddit; the quoted date of the meeting is correct. (I can't see a way to edit the title of a Reddit post.)
submitted by biolizard89 to Namecoin [link] [comments]

The Strategy I Used To Land A $40,000 SMMA Client [Beginner Friendly] How to install Bitcoin Armory in Ubuntu 14.04 Armory Tutorial Part 1 Get Better Client Reviews MaxMailz Review  FULL WALKTHROUGH & MEGA BONUSES

Your Bitcoin wallet address can also be represented as a QR code. If somebody wishes to send your Bitcoin, they can scan the code using their Bitcoin wallet and send Bitcoin to your wallet: When you sign up with Luno , you'll be assigned your own unique Bitcoin wallet address. Any Bitcoin sent to this address will be added to your Luno account. Bitcoin core. Bitcoin Core 0.19.0 Released. Bitcoin Core 0.19.0 has been released with new features, performance improvements, and several bug fixes.CVE-2017-18350 Disclosure. Disclosure of the details of CVE-2017-18350, a fix for which was released on November 6th, 2017 in Bitcoin Core version 0.15.1 Click the large blue Download Bitcoin Core button to download the Bitcoin Core installer to Bitcoin Discussion General discussion about the Bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't fit better elsewhere. News, the Bitcoin community, innovations, the general environment, etc. Discussion of specific Bitcoin-related services usually belongs in other sections. Bitcoin is what started the righteous revolution in the fight for the future of finance. Keep your browsers bookmarked and brain banked for this ultimate Bitcoin guide.. When Bitcoin Became the Little Coin That Could: The Relentless Rumblings of an Emerging Crypto-Money Economy and the ‘My ₿itcoin' Era A full BitCoin client has to download the entire BitCoin blockchain, which is always growing and is multiple gigabytes in size. That could get you into a heap of trouble with your mobile service provider, who will be only too happy to send you a hefty bill for downloading it over a cellular link.

[index] [18664] [24207] [14207] [3607] [3591] [18546] [12880] [7220] [29057] [5552]

The Strategy I Used To Land A $40,000 SMMA Client [Beginner Friendly]

This simple 7 step process will help you get the BEST reviews from the RIGHT people so you can GROW your business and work with your IDEAL clients! Say Hi on Social Media: https://www.facebook.com ... Live Bitcoin Trading With Crypto Trading Robot DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Backup 887 watching. ... How to Use Zoom Online Meetings ... Easy Bitcoin Electrum Wallet/Client tutorial for beginners. 2014. The Strategy I Used To Land A $40,000 SMMA Client [Beginner Friendly] Free Masterclass on how to run a $10,000/mo completely automated advertising agency: https://bit.ly/2Ww5Rlz Subscribe here ... bitcoin aktie bitcoin armory bitcoin account bitcoin average ... bitcoin client, bitcoin chart live, bitcoin card, ... USB Block Erupter ASIC Miner Review - Duration: 3:15. mohawkade 27,111 views. Bitcoin Armory Setup - Duration: ... Choose your Bitcoin Wallet - An in-depth review of BitcoinQT, ... 27:32. Secure Your Wallet 24,312 views. 27:32. 7 Zoom Meeting Tips Every User Should Know! ...

Flag Counter