Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
Somewhat relevant, I came across this the other day:
The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules
It looks like an interesting read. The "sad" part is that there is no audio format (I am a HUGE fan of Audible, as I walk and drive a lot every day..)
"In proof-of-work, wealth != power"
Thanks for explaining this so brilliantly as always.
All it takes to overpower miners in bitcoin is $50 rasp-pi rig as bitcoin full node users proved in The Blocksize War.
When security of a blockchain depends on the coin created by system itself and only people with staked coins can validate blocks, you're FUBAR when someone with enough coins wants to attack the chain or force changes to their own benefit.
It's worse than fiat. As you said it's a closed system and the large stakers, preminers cannot even be unseated. They just get more and more powerful.
Chinese miners tried to force big blocks on users and seize power. Full node users decided to keep bitcoin decentralized.
There I fixed your bcash propaganda.
If you want to read about how the users beat the sh*t out of the Chinese miners, read about it in the book The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules
Personal insults don't change the fact Satoshi was focused on a decentralized digital coin. Bitcoin Jesus betrayed decentralization for short-term growth. Judas trolls newbies.The Blocksize War at Amazon
Have you read about the blocksize wars? (https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM) It has been tried, over and over again. I am not saying BTC is invulnerable, but it wouldn't go down easily that's for sure.
The question for you, is whether you are running your own BTC full node.
We already fought a war over this partner.
I would recommend reading this book. There’s a lot of nuance to this can of worms.
There is a pretty good book on this topic:
There are 881 contributors to bitcoin core, the reference open source software that runs on the bitcoin protocol: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Only a handful of people have permissions to change code:
Wladimir J. van der Laan <>
Pieter Wuille <>
Jonas Schnelli <>
Marco Falke <>
Samuel Dobson <[email protected]>
But even if malicious code was merged, it would require a majority of nodes to upgrade to malicious code, which would be detrimental to the protocol.
An interesting read about who has control over the bitcoin network is here, talking about the issue of increasing the block size that ultimately led to a hard fork: https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM
There's actually a whole book on the blocksize war called The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin's protocol by Jonathan Bier.
Yup, it was bananas.
I payed $100 fees back then.
A great book on the topic https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM if you want to dive deeper ;)
Who owns bitcoin now? and how does that change over time?
- There are over 900,000 unique bitcoin addresses in existence. The ownership of bitcoin is in favour of those who bought first, the early adopters. However, the data shows that these addresses have been gradually selling down their stacks to diversify / to buy nice things, to cash out (somewhat).
How do we sustain the mining of an increasingly intensive currency into the foreseeable future?
There is so much to say here, and i genuinely don't have the time to do so. Proof of work mining is truly astounding and it's likely the best solution to climate change. Please allow me to drop a few links in here..
Who maintains it as a standard and how?
No one has control over bitcoin. Miners, Nodes and developers share responsibility - none of which have more control than another as they can all veto one another and the monetary incentives as they are now are too lucrative to change anything. Read about the blocksize wars to know more about the failed attempt to change the course of Bitcoin.
Is there any form of centralization at all in the form of public services?
There is no centralisation - and it's forever getting more decentralised. Chip manufacturing is the highest centralised risk imo at the moment, but it's low still.
Imagine a world on a bitcoin standard...
Given that a truly free market makes everything cheaper, whilst monetary policy - enabled by FIAT - makes everything more expensive. Then the potential is huge.
I've loads more to say, but no time
> But the cult of BTC sells it as more than that.
I can't make sense of that.
> doesn't really leave room for anything other than Core-blessed hard forks
No such thing has ever existed so I can't figure out what you're saying.
>> Generally, a sensible fix to a bug wouldn't be a hard fork to begin with.
> I hope you can appreciate the hubris in this statement. It wouldn't be hard to find examples of old software which were found to have severe bugs long after they've been announced "stable".
What does your reply have anything to do with hard forks?
> Clearly Segwit+LN was the "sensible fix". /s
huh? again: I can't follow you here. Can you elaborate?
> Updating desktop software are unreasonable costs?
It's either well advised or a requirement that you review the software for security, otherwise a malicious or defective update could cause total funds loss. New software also has to be vetted for compatiblity with your other systems, If you're just some desktop user compatibility may be no big deal but if you're engaging in commerce (you know-- the point of Bitcoin) you may have a considerable amount of bespoke integration for automated transaction handling that must be tested.
Updating software also requires that your system be compatible-- this may require upgrading your entire operating system.
> Even the signing bug you mentioned was a version upgrade for infrastructure operators. A version upgrade should be business-as-usual for any serious/dedicated operation.
The fix there was rolled out over a period of a year and miners (the only infrastructure that had to update) could continue running their customized versions just with a small patch. Other parties such as merchants and exchanges didn't need to change anything.
> or supporting segwit was worth it vs increasing a constant
I think you're confused about the purpose of segwit. The purpose of segwit was to allow users to make transactions that were safe from the malleability vulnerability that made it unsafe to use chains of unconfirmed transactions, since they could be invalided by other parties. It accomplished this by separating the transactions witness from the txid-- thus the same segwit.
That it was also possible to increase capacity for witness data-- which, since it isn't part of the UTXO set has reduced impact on node operating costs-- as a side effect, was a nice bonus but wasn't the purpose of the addition.
I don't see how lightning is at all relevant to the discussion here, and I don't have any opinions on the subject.
> increasing a constant by a compromised amount (which was agreed upon but backed out of at the last minute by the core contributing group
This is just pure fiction, as such I don't know what else to say about it. It sounds like you've been fed maliciously constructed misinformation. You may want to read this book for an accurate third party account.
>> incompatible changes have a tremendous operating and personal autonomy cost and are rightfully minimized
> I know you have software skills. I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm struggling to understand how you reconcile this statement with Segwit+LN as being the scaling decision you most agree with.
I don't have strong opinions on Lightning, and I can't decode what you think there is to reconcile? Segwit is compatible with past software-- that's why you can just spin up a bitcoin binary from 2013 and transact just fine (or even older, with some twiddling).
> But considering the centralized group of resources which compensate the majority of contributors to the core BTC impl and protocol, I could speculate (but won't)
Again, it sound like you've been fed unadulterated misinformation. Bitcoin's development is a volunteer open source collaboration. There has never been a "centralized group of resources" that "compensate the majority of contributors", and there surely isn't now. I'd offer a more concrete debunking of your allegation but your comment is so vague that there isn't anything to say to it.
> Interesting narrative, but I disagree. No action would've meant that user would remain on the BTC fork (they wouldn't have upgraded to the recent version of those impls which would've forked). Explicit action was the only way someone would've been, (checks notes), "pushed off the network by abrupt flag day changes that their developers lacked the resources to keep up with". And explicit action would allowed the user a choice of any of those nodes should they have wanted to join the BCH fork (or any other fork).
You misunderstand. There used to be several bcash node implementations that people used. These implementations couldn't keep up with the flag day hardfork changes bcash kept making and stopped updating. As a result, users were abruptly forced to stop using the software they preferred.
My comment was not about bcash splitting off from bitcoin except to note that Bitcoin's stability means that the pre-split version of those bcash nodes still works on Bitcoin to this day. Bitcoin has preserved compatibility, while bcash (in this example) broke it liberally and drove software users were using off their network as a result.
>> Bitcoin's compatibility means you can transition at your own pace
> I can pretty confidently say that this was literally never a tenant of design for any piece of software ever.
Your confidence just shows total ignorance of the field-- particularly any distributed system. All intra-domain routing protocols are maintained that way, most networking protocols are maintained that way, even most document standards are maintained that way. Flag days are not particularly viable in large scale systems that lack a single point of centeral control.
> I'm sure you're aware of bit rot
Which is an a mixture of an obvious falsehood (bits don't rot, the whole advantage of binary computing is that bits are noiseless) and a true consequence of some very modern language ecosystems that haven't learned that stability has value. I regularly use code written in the 1970s to mid 1980s (e.g. the standard code for finite element analysis, commonly used code for telescope pointing, many codes for linear algebra). It works fine. To the extent that people are forced into changing things, its due to compatibility with unstable interfaces. This compatibility flows both directions, which is also as I mentioned above part of why flag day upgrades can be very costly and disruptive: E.g. a flag day forces you to change a component. The new component requires a newer operating system. Some other component you use still requires the older operating system-- and then you're in dependency hell.
Miners are working class citizens. They hold no power over protocol. Read the book The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules
Not bickering. It’s just how bitcoin works, so there’s not really argument to be made against it. It’s all in the code itself.
You can read more on it in the book The blocksize wars:
Here’s a brief summary
> You mean like the constant pump and dump schemes that crypto bros keep falling for?
We're not talking about other crypto. We're talking about Bitcoin.
> Sure, in much the same way that breathing oxygen "allows" for people to develop cancer since no one would develop cancer if everyone stopped breathing.
Jesus your analogies are bad. Yes, "allows" whereas Bitcoin does not "allow" that. So I guess Bitcoin is cancer-resistant(?) by this dumbass analogy.
> That's a really dumb standard. Do you expect atheists to run the church? Do you expect luddites to run the tech companies?
Then please demonstrate exactly how your vote has impacted Fed policy.
> That's not how things work in the real world.
I'm sorry, but after your claim that someone's single vote has more impact on Fed policy than that person can have over Bitcoin, your claim that Cantillon effects don't really benefit the bankers/politicians, I have no reason to believe your assertions one what "the real world" behaves like.
> 0.01% of the population is nearly one million people. If the richest 1 million people of the want want to control 51% of Bitcoin mining, then it's going to be difficult for the rest of the population to stop them.
Ok. And if that ever actually takes place, then we should address it. But keep in mind that this is the exact situation right now with the dollar, but even more concentrated.
> For instance, look at Elon Musk's manipulation of the bitcoin market for personal gain.
Ok...? The result of such manipulation was a temporary fluctuation of price. And this becomes less likely and more difficult as the overall capital and network size grows.
> You keep insisting you have massive say over how bitcoin is run.
No, I said that a random individual can have massively MORE influence over bitcoin policy than they do over Fed policy.
> Again, go ahead and prove it. Show me an example of this supposed voice and influence you're capable of carrying out.
Ok. Now you prove how your vote has influenced Fed policy.
Sure. And I'll give you a quick history. There was never consensus for Bitcoin to have big blocks. And Bitcoin Cash wasn't created specifically for bigger blocks. Bitcoin Cash was created because a group of Bitcoin miners in China that controlled a large amount of Bitcoin's hashrate were using a secret mining enhancement called AsicBoost that gave them a 20% hashrate advantage. Bitcoin was going to implement segregated witness (SegWit) and SegWit is not compatible with AsicBoost. The majority of miners did not support SegWit because they were using AsicBoost and they wanted to keep using AsicBoost. So the Bitcoin users that were running fully validating nodes activated SegWit on their own. So the group of miners that wanted to keep using AsicBoost created the Bitcoin Cash hard fork.
After the chain split, Roger ver, Jihan Wu (the owner of Bitmain and AntPool), and the billionaire Calvin Ayre were all pumping the price of Bitcoin Cаsһ and Roger and Jihan were dumping a ton of BTC on big exchanges for BCH. The Bcashers thought that if they could get the price of BCH high enough and make BCH more profitable to mine, then most of the Bitcoin miners would switch over and BCH's price would stay above Bitcoin's price forever. Their plan failed.
Now Bcashers try to trick users that are uneducated about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency to believe that BCH is Bitcoin. Those newbies they trick don't realize that BCH having huge massive blocks and not really having transaction fees means there wont be any incentive for the BCH miners to continue securing the BCH network after over 99% of BCH has been mined in year 2032. Maybe the same group that created BCH and that has always controlled the majority of the BCH hashrate will continue mining it. But will the group that created BCH continue mining it without a block reward? Possibly, but the hashrate would most likely be less than 0.1% of Bitcoin's hashrate at that point.
Bitcoin Cash is a centralized altcoin that uses the Bitcoin name in an attempt to trick users that are uneducated about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency into believing that it is Bitcoin. BCH currently only has 0.64% of the hashrate of Bitcoin and there are only a thousand BCH nodes. Meanwhile, there are over 50,000 Bitcoin nodes. And a single group controlled 80% of the hashrate of BCH for a long time (the same group that created BCH) and AntPool alone controlled over 50% of the BCH hashrate for years.
Look at the current hashrate of the BCH mining pools: https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoincash
Three of those top four mining pools were a part of the group that created BCH (antpool, viabtc and btc.com). They were the top 3 mining pools until this year. Then Sbicrypto started mining BCH last year and they made it into the top 3 this year.
The Bcashers are holding heavy heavy bags of a centralized altcoin that has no future. Some of them paid as much as 0.25 BTC for 1 BCH after the chain split. The Bcashers need to keep tricking more newbies into believing that it's really Bitcoin and getting them to invest in it. They've been scammed and now they're trying to bring others into the scam to pump their bags.
The Bcashers use the BTC subreddit to promote Bitcoin Cash and spread lies, misinformation and propaganda about Bitcoin. They claim that BCH is Bitcoin and that Bitcoin was taken over in 2017 and that the Lightning Network is centralized and that the Lightning Network is centralized or that it doesn't really use bitcoin. All of that is false. The truth is that BTC is the only Bitcoin and the Lightning Network is an open source second layer payment protocol built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. A lightning payment channel is just a multi-sig wallet on the Bitcoin blockchain. All of the BTC on the Lightning Network is backed by signed transactions that can broadcasted to the Bitcoin network at any time. So yes it's really bitcoin on the Lightning Network and yes the Lightning Network is decentralized. The Lightning Network enables Bitcoin users to instantly send and receive bitcoin with fees so low that they are negligible. And the Lightning Network can scale to handle as much demand as possibly needed. Here is a short summary of how the Lightning Network works: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-technical-summary.pdf
I suggest reading <strong>The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules</strong> if you want to know more about the blocksize war.
You should read this if you want neutral view of what happened during the block size debate.
You can start with these three books or audiobooks:
The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous https://saifedean.com/thebitcoinstandard/
Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopoulos https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook
The Blocksize War by Jonathan Bier https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM
Good podcast for beginners - What Bitcoin Did (the first episode is with author of one of aforementioned books) https://youtu.be/RpcZ1DvCAf8
Read this. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YQMC2WM
You could write a book about it. In fact, someone did.
They tried a few years ago.
Go read the Blocksize War if you want to educate yourself, https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM
Or watch this for the tl;dr, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YtS5ZNuuTw
They tried a few years ago.
Please read The Blocksize War by Jonathan Bier. It gives one of the most comprehensive views on the battle to keep Bitcoin decentralized by taking a layered design approach. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YQMC2WM/
here is a great write-up: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Jonathan-Bier/dp/B08YQMC2WM
The Blocksize War: https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM
You can find all chapters available on Bitmex site as well, although they're kinda hidden. They're not linked together, so you need to find them one by one through their blog. Here's chapter one: https://blog.bitmex.com/the-blocksize-war-chapter-1-first-strike/
In this book, it's explained how miners actually have very little influence over the network. They are just service providers. It's really the nodes (the users) of the network who control its consensus rules. The users/nodes have no incentive to go with a split chain for Bitcoin.
Or, you can just watch this video from Andreas:
Did you even read the book? Most probably not based on your conspirational comment. The book and author actually tries to give a very balanced view of both sides of the war.
Here is the book: 'The Blocksize War' by Jonny Biel from BitMEX Research:
Not really pertaining to investing, but I just started this the other week.
Pretty great insight into the history of Bitcoin, with some nice cautionary warnings.
Obviously by my answer they tried. There's even a book about it.
This books is more accurate and truthful than anything you will find in manipulated google results.
The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YQMC2WM/
The Blocksize War
In full here: https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM
Slowly being released for free here: https://blog.bitmex.com/the-blocksize-war-chapter-1-first-strike/