Dub 25

Charlie Shrem: ‘It’s Not About The Technology Anymore, It’s About Power’

· April 25, 2017 · 9:00 am

Bitcoin entrepreneur Charlie Shrem shared his views on the scaling debate, stating that “it’s not about technology anymore, it’s about power.”


Shrem: ‘It’s About Power’

Charlie Shrem, Bitcoin entrepreneur and co-founder of Intellysis, was present in today’s episode of the  Double Down show, dubbed “Does Block Size Matter?” with the usual hosts Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert.

Hard Fork Wars

During the show, Shrem expressed his thoughts regarding the current state of the scaling debate or as Herbert called it, “the Great Blocksize War of 2017.”

Shrem stated:

In reality, it’s not a technical argument anymore. Everyone on both sides of the table say that SegWit is the best technology that we have.

According to Shrem, the scaling debate is no longer about the most viable technology or solution that can be used to scale Bitcoin. Instead, the scaling debate has become a power struggle between two development teams, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Core.

“The other side of the debate, which is Bitcoin Unlimited, they agree that SegWit is a great technology,” he continued. “But to them it’s not about technology anymore, it’s about power.”

Shrem went on to say:

They want to remove [Bitcoin Core’s] ability to work on Bitcoin and instead have a closed-membership small group of four to five developers, who they think are the best for the job, run Bitcoin going forward.

A Test for Bitcoin

However, there is a silver lining in this development, which Shrem considers it as an “extremely bullish situation for Bitcoin.” The current block size “drama” is showcasing Bitcoin’s ability to resist a malicious attack on the network.

He noted:

Here you have a group of bad actors who are trying to overtake the Bitcoin network and essentially fork all of bitcoin and force all Bitcoin users to be able to use their developers and their codebase and their everything and it’s not a group of miners that’s preventing this.

Shrem sees the current hash power signaling as a “glorified poll” when it comes to hard fork given that nodes are the ones that validate blocks and they can discard the ones from the hard-forked chain at will, meaning that miners don’t have nearly as much power as they think they do.

This can be observed the UASF proposal, which would bypass the miners completely and leave it up to the nodes to force SegWit into activation.

However, it may not come down to a UASF, as mining pools like F2Pool are beginning to move to SegWit driven by demand from individual users that contribute hashrate to the pool.

Champagne Problem

Not all is gloomy for Bitcoin, however. Amidst all the tension and drama, one must also look at the bright side, which is the reason we’re having this heated debate at all: Bitcoin is growing at an exponential rate.

This is, as Shrem puts it, a “champagne problem,” one that gives us as much to celebrate as it gives us to fight about. 

Bitcoin 2016

“It’s a good problem to have. Bitcoin has grown really quickly. We never expected this to happen so quickly, to be honest. We’re getting towards what they call a ‘champagne problem,’ how do you scale?” he said.

This means that not only is Bitcoin working as intended, but there is also an urgent need for such a currency in the world. Now, it’s only a matter of making sure that Bitcoin can become that currency and still maintain its decentralized and immutable characteristics.

Shrem concluded:

There has always been research and conversations on scaling over the past three years but, to be honest, we didn’t think we’d see this exponential growth in Bitcoin and now it’s time to have that conversation.

Do you agree? Is the scaling debate actually about power and control? Share below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, alchetron.com, coin.dance

Show comments

Share
Led 29

Big Changes in 2017 Will Shape the Future of Cryptocurrencies

· January 29, 2017 · 5:00 am

2017 will be the year where many more substantial changes happen. These changes will affect the future of cryptocurrencies.


Big Changes in 2017

We’ve seen some great developments across the cryptocurrency landscape these past few years. Recent changes have made the cryptocurrency scene even livelier than anticipated.

As reported before, more than 2.3 billion people can now shop on Amazon using Bitcoin. New regulations are being put in place by Europol, Interpol and the Basel Institute to protect Bitcoin exchanges and users.

2017 will be the year where many more substantial changes happen. These changes will affect the future of cryptocurrencies. To help you prepare for this exciting year, here are some of the biggest changes to anticipate.

More Emphasis on Privacy

Bitcoin was never the most private cryptocurrency on the market. The nature of Bitcoin means each Bitcoin address can still be tied to an individual if the address is linked to an account or other identifiable information. When this happens, it is easy to dig up a lot of information about the owner of the Bitcoin address.

Bitcoin Privacy

A recent discussion in Bitcointalk Forum revealed that a payment recipient can find out more about the sender’s spending habits and calculate the amount of Bitcoin the sender actually has just by retracing a single payment. All that is needed is a linked Bitcoin address. This is a problem that has been haunting Bitcoin for a while.

In the future, cryptocurrencies such as Monero will gain more traction due to the way they are set up for maximum privacy. Monero is already enjoying a boost in value due to its immensely private nature. More merchants in the Dark Web are now using Monero to handle their transactions.

Cryptocurrency in Education

It is also interesting to note that cryptocurrencies are beginning to be seen as investment opportunities and legitimate transaction methods beyond their digital boundaries. Universities such as Ohio University and the master of financial economics programs they provide are already hosting classes about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. Some colleges are also allowing students to pay for their online MFE degree using bitcoin.

20060417-cutler-hall

The move is a good sign that cryptocurrency is going mainstream. We already have thousands of offline merchants accepting Bitcoin payments today. It won’t be long before major corporations and brands begin to integrate cryptocurrencies into their transaction workflows.

The rapid growth of Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum, and other popular currencies has also attracted investors who are buying into cryptocurrencies solely for investment purposes. These investments are yet to make a big impact on the value of cryptocurrencies, but this year’s addition may change that.

Bigger Capacity

One last potential issue that has been looming over the use of cryptocurrencies is capacity. The blockchain issues we had earlier last year already showed how capacity can still be an issue. Fortunately, newer algorithms and better programming loops are being implemented to expand the reach of cryptocurrencies outside its current limitations.

Bitcoinist_cargo_Shipping

All of these changes are very good for the future of cryptocurrency and they will be taking shape in 2017. There are still more steps to complete before cryptocurrencies can truly go mainstream, but we’ll be seeing a lot of progress happening this year.

Will these three areas be the main focus for cryptocurrencies in 2017? Share your thoughts below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Ohio.edu

Show comments

Share
Bře 17

C-bit: Bitcoin Core .12 ‘Clone’ Aims to End Block Size Debate

Source: bitcoin

C-bit

C-bit is an “exact clone” of Bitcoin Core .12 with one small modification aimed at ending the block size debate. This Core clone has a 2MB block size built into the source code. Developers say that this native 2MB block size “negates the need for a Bitcoin Core Hard Fork.”

Disclaimer: This article was provided by Bitcoin PR Buzz. Bitcoinist is not affiliated with the firms represented by Bitcoin PR Buzz and is not responsible for their products and/or services.

C-bit: A Modified Core Clone

C-bit operates on an independent and original blockchain. This blockchain can “develop independently to Bitcoin — becoming, in a more managed way, more centralized — while allowing the original Bitcoin to return to its decentralized version.”

Although C-bit paints itself as “more centralized,” the coin’s code is still open source. The coin’s website says that its open source status makes this Core clone “every bit as easy to work with a [sic] Bitcoin is.”

In addition to the 2MB block size, C-bit has slightly modified Core .12 so that it will have 210 million coins in total, with a block reward of of 500 coins. According to the developers, “If Bitcoin is the $100 bill, then C-bit is the $10 bill. C-bit could be the ‘walking around’ change.”

The team behind this coin says that their project should be sufficient to end the block size debate once and for all:

“With this new coin, the debate over whether Bitcoin Classic should any longer be forcing Bitcoin Core to convert, is over. Bitcoin Classic now has a coin at its immediate disposal that is tailor-made for its stated purposes and meets all of its requirements. If Bitcoin Classic wants Bitcoin Core with a 2-Meg block-size, then C-bit fits the bill, and is ready to do business with Bitcoin Classic.”

Developers want this new coin to become the “banking system,” with Bitcoin as the “decentralized ‘Central Bank.” With Bitcoin acting as a “Central vault or the holder of wealth,” C-bit can operate as a system of “smaller banks that act like branches to the Central Bank.” Developers believe that the C-bit “smaller bank system” will be more conducive to merchants and individual cash transfers.

The coin’s developers are also reportedly working on “Helix Technology,” a project aimed at combining Bitcoin and C-bit into a “DNA-type structure.” The developers say that “this structure has promise to vastly increase the speed, power, and memory capacity of the resulting intertwined Bitcoin and C-bit Blockchains.”

To learn more please go to:

C-bit has just begun trading on:

About Bitcoin PR Buzz:

Bitcoin PR Buzz has been proudly serving the PR and marketing needs of Bitcoin and digital currency tech start-ups for over 2 years. Get your own professional Bitcoin and digital currency Press Release. Click here for more information.

The post C-bit: Bitcoin Core .12 ‘Clone’ Aims to End Block Size Debate appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

C-bit: Bitcoin Core .12 ‘Clone’ Aims to End Block Size Debate

Share
Úno 24

F2Pool Threatens To Withdraw Consensus Support Over Adam Back Allegations

Source: bitcoin

Bitcoinist_Roundtable Bitcoin

For those people who were under the impression the Bitcoin block size debate was over, you are sadly mistaken. That being said, things are getting interesting, as F2Pool announced they will withdraw support from the February 21 roundtable consensus unless things are sorted out on the Adam Back front. There is never a dull day in the world of Bitcoin politics; that much is certain.

Also read: Five Bitcoin ATM Operators Switched Over To Bitcoin Classic

Adam Back and Blockstream

Various Bitcoin community members have been claiming how Blockstream is planning to drive Bitcoin Core development in a different direction than was originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto. While it is incredibly hard to verify those claims, there is something strange going on with this company, to say the least.

Based on a post made earlier by F2Pool earlier today, Blockstream President Adam Back has changed his official position title to “Individual” at the last moment when a consensus was reached regarding the block size debate on February 21st.  While it is rather strange to see such an event unfold, the bigger question is what motive has been the driving factor in this decision by Adam Back.

Looking at the Blockstream website, Adam Back is still listed as the company president. That same title and job function is listed on the official Medium post detailing what this consensus means for the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, the announcement by F2Pool seems to indicate something changed at the last moment, even though there does not seem to be any evidence to verify this statement.

F2pool feels betrayed and cheated by Adam Back’s decision to take this – allegedly – sneaky approach. So much even that they are planning to withdraw support from the roundtable consensus unless Adam back steps forward and explains this ordeal to them and the rest of the Bitcoin community.

Some Bitcoin community members are arguing it does not matter how Adam Back positions himself as a part of Blockstream, as all that matters is his support. In a way, it makes sense to list oneself as an individual rather than a company president on delicate matters like these, as it is unknown whether all Blockstream employees are on the same wavelength.

Mining Pools Don’t Need Handholding

In the end, it all comes down to who one can trust in the Bitcoin world. The answer to that question is rather simple: no one but yourself. There is no need to rely on opinions presented by others, as it is impossible to verify whether or not their intentions are honest.

This announcement marks another significant step in the scheme of Bitcoin politics that are running rampant in the digital currency ecosystem right now. All everyone should want is a workable solution everyone can agree on. All of this bickering and possible backstabbing needs to end before things get out of hand.

What are your thoughts on the announcement by F2Pool? Is it such a big deal as they claim it is? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: BitcoinTalk

Images courtesy of Blockstream, Shutterstock

The post F2Pool Threatens To Withdraw Consensus Support Over Adam Back Allegations appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

F2Pool Threatens To Withdraw Consensus Support Over Adam Back Allegations

Share
Úno 24

Five Bitcoin ATM Operators Switched Over To Bitcoin Classic

Source: bitcoin

Bitcoinist_Bitcoin Ecosystem

While the war between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Classic enthusiasts is far from over, the entire digital currency landscape is slowly starting to change. Most people assumed bitcoin ATMs would not take sides in this debate, but it looks like a mind shift is taking place in this segment as well. A total of five Bitcoin ATM operators in North America has switched from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Classic, a decision affecting a total of 29 machines.

Also read: LimoPlay Launches World’s first 3D Slot Game

Operating A Bitcoin ATM During The Block Size Debate

When thinking of a Bitcoin ATM, hardly anyone gives the concept of which wallet software solution they are running a second thought. Up until a year or so ago, Bitcoin Core would have been the clear answer to that solution. But ever since the debate about upping the block size has taken place, that certainty is no longer guaranteed.

In the United States, five different Bitcoin ATM operators have made the switch from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Classic, as they support the latter solution’s approach to solving the block size problem. This change affects a total of 29 Bitcoin ATMs in North America, operated by Sumbits, Tobitcoin, Herocoin, Coinucopia, and Bitlove. Twenty-nine devices represent quite a significant percentage of the total number of machines in that region.

The Bitcoin block size affects any business operating in the digital currency ecosystem, and ATM operators are no exception to that rule. In fact, some Bitcoin ATM operators see this block size debate as something more than just a philosophical discussion. Increasing the block size is not something people disagree on, but the way it should be done has further ramifications for Bitcoin network.

A larger block size will, on paper, at last, give Bitcoin a better chance of becoming a mainstream payment network used by consumers all over the world. While this change from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Classic will not make any notable difference to users of these devices, every Bitcoin ATM runs as a Bitcoin node as well. This means Bitcoin Classic has another 29 nodes to add to its repertoire.

It is rather intriguing to see Bitcoin ATM operators taking sides in this debate as well, although that is not a negative thing by any means. A lot of people tend to forget Bitcoin ATMs act as network nodes as well, and how the different software solutions might suit their needs better than others.

But What If Bitcoin Classic Fails?

This is one of the main questions a lot of Bitcoiners seem to be asking themselves as of late. The growing support for Bitcoin Classic can not be denied by any means, but the solution is still far away from reaching their majority consensus goal. Yesterday’s release of Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 may shake things up once again in the coming days and weeks.

Some people on Reddit were even claiming how Bitcoin ATMs should start supporting various altcoins as well, avoiding the Bitcoin scalability issue altogether. That proposal was shot down rather quickly, as there is no major demand for 99% of altcoins in existence. There is no need to jump to strange conclusions just yet.

What are your thoughts on this decision by these five Bitcoin ATM operators? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Reddit

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, CoinFinance

The post Five Bitcoin ATM Operators Switched Over To Bitcoin Classic appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Five Bitcoin ATM Operators Switched Over To Bitcoin Classic

Share
Led 22

DASH Block Size Increase Reaches Consensus in Less Than 24 hours

Source: bitcoin

dash

(North American Bitcoin Conference, Miami, January 21, 2016) – Dash (www.dash.org), the #3 cryptocurrency in the world used for consumer payments (behind bitcoin and litecoin) celebrated its second anniversary of existence on Monday by holding a vote among its stakeholders to increase its blocksize (far ahead of demand) from 1 MB to 2 MB.  It passed within 24 hours with 99 percent of the vote.

Also read: Meet the Guys Who Paid $10,000 for a Bitcoin Comic Book

Dash Block Size Increase

“With pundits in a panic proclaiming the death of bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrencies not backed by a bank or government from a single blog post by a former bitcoin developer who has joined a bank blockchain development consortium, we thought it would be instrumental to show how the superior consensus mechanism in the world’s fastest cryptocurrency can be achieved in a single day through Dash’s decentralized governance protocol where one literally votes with one’s coins,” said Evan Duffield, creator and chief architect of Dash.

Dash (DASH), which currently hovers around $4 per coin and has a $25 million market cap (similar to bitcoin in 2011) vs bitcoin’s market cap of nearly $6 billion, is also completely decentralized but is superior to bitcoin in several ways:

(1) Dash has instant confirmations vs. 10 minutes or more for bitcoin, which makes it superior for person-to-person commerce, bitcoin ATMs (Dash also announced integration this week with the world’s largest maker of bitcoin ATMs, Lamassu).  Dash developers discovered a way to “trap” the first trusted miner confirmation and prohibit double-spending, as opposed to the current bitcoin paradigm where hundreds of confirmations take place and many wallets will require as many as six confirmations before the transfer of bitcoins is complete.  Until a larger block size is implemented for bitcoin, increasing volume will continue to make transactions take longer on the bitcoin blockchain.

(2) The governance of Dash is hard-coded into its network, so all stakeholders who run a node of 1,000 Dash or more get an instant vote on the future of the network.  This week’s vote took less than 24 hours to get a majority of nodes to vote and was passed by an overwhelming majority (99 percent voted yes).  This contrasts with the bitcoin protocol, which requires negotiated agreements (in the current case, taking more than a year) to arrive at a consensus and then the further agreement of all miners to accept this.

3) Dash is created through an original mining protocol, x11, which was written by Duffield to keep the “arms race” among miners at bay by making it incredibly difficult to create single-purpose ASIC chips for mining Dash at scale, as is currently the case with bitcoin.  This creates an inherently more fair opportunity for “home miners” by eliminating the prospect of massive mining farms in China that have recently been criticized as an inherent weakness in the bitcoin system.

Dash developer Evan Duffield, an American programmer based in Phoenix, is the founder of the innovative cryptocurrency, which now has a robust international user base, including more than half the network nodes of bitcoin itself. Dash was already able to handle four times the volume of bitcoin before this doubling of block size, and it will now be able to handle eight times the volume – and provide instant transactions, instant settlement and enhanced privacy (more similar to cash than is bitcoin as the Dash blockchain does not leave public transaction details) on each transaction.

While Dash developers and proponents believe bitcoin will always hold a great utility for store of value and sending of larger transactions (into the millions of dollars), Dash is immediately a better solution for smaller transactions and microtransactions (the existence of which has slowed down and “bloated” the bitcoin blockchain, leading to its current scaling issues).

Duffield will give a rare in-person presentation at the North American Bitcoin Conference this Friday morning to update the bitcoin community on these developments, as well as to show an early version of Dash Evolution, a mobile-enabled user interface that will make interacting in Dash even easier than before.

About Dash

Created in January, 2014, by American programmer Evan Duffield, Dash (DASH) is a privacy-centric digital currency with instant transactions. It is based on the Bitcoin software, but it has a two tier network that improves it. Dash allows users to remain anonymous while making instant transactions, similar to cash. Dash transactions are almost instantly confirmed by the Masternodes network. This is a great improvement on Bitcoin’s system, where confirmations take much longer because all the work is done by the miners. For full details please visit www.dash.org.


Source: Press Release

Images courtesy of DASH

The post DASH Block Size Increase Reaches Consensus in Less Than 24 hours appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

DASH Block Size Increase Reaches Consensus in Less Than 24 hours

Share
Led 15

Mike Hearn Has Left The Bitcoin Building

Source: bitcoin

Mike Hearn Has Left The Bitcoin Building

Reaching consensus can be difficult, and that’s something Mike Hearn wanted to tell the world on January 14th. In a Medium post, he calls “The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment” long-time Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn has left the industry. The statement that is quite long goes into a very detailed testimony to why he’s left and that he sold all his bitcoins.

Also read: Peter Todd Double Spends on Coinbase

Mike Hearn, Former Bitcoin Developer

Mike Hearn former Google engineer and the first person to implement Bitcoin in Java, lead developer of the controversial XT fork, and a person whose software he’s “written has been used by millions of users” is all done with the Bitcoin protocol. In fact, he said that it was a “failure” throughout much of the very extensive testimony. Hearn says:

“But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly.”

Hearn follows this statement with great detail to why he’s leaving the Bitcoin protocol and moving on. He believes that most people don’t know that “people had issues moving money, erratic fees, mining is controlled by China, and companies involved are in an open civil war” Not only does he mention this array of failure points he adds that a reversal feature was added to the code. This “allowed buyers to take back payments they’d made after walking out of shops, by simply pressing a button (if you aren’t aware of this “feature” that’s because Bitcoin was only just changed to allow it)”  

The block size issue was mentioned throughout much of the post. He contends that the blockchain is full saying, “you may wonder how it is possible for what is essentially a series of files to be “full”. The answer is that an entirely artificial capacity cap of one megabyte per block, put in place as a temporary kludge a long time ago, has not been removed and, as a result, the network’s capacity is now almost completely exhausted.” Hearn blames the mining industry for this matter most notably the core of miners based in China. He details the Scaling Bitcoin Conference had 90% of the network sitting upon the stage. He claims that because of certain restrictions in China the miners who reside there have some manipulation in the game. This gives them tremendous incentive to play the game this way he states:

The Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide. Imagine an entire country connected to the rest of the world by cheap hotel wifi, and you’ve got the picture. Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet and claim the 25 BTC reward ($11,000) that each block they create gives them. But if the Bitcoin network got more popular, they fear taking part would get too difficult and they’d lose their income stream. This gives them a perverse financial incentive to actually try and stop Bitcoin becoming popular.”

The former developer also explains the hardships involved with the XT fork. He details how the XT network of users had suffered from severe DDoS attacks and the discussion was met with much hatred. Hearn explains,  “It was a massive DDoS that took down my entire (rural) ISP. Everyone in five towns lost their internet service for several hours last summer because of these criminals. It definitely discouraged me from hosting nodes.” He goes into great description of the censorship on reddit and the battle of Coinbase and Bitcoin.org.

Then he goes into his own arguments with developers in the industry. Hearn seems to feel many different arguments have distorted the roadmap and states his reasons to why he did not attend the “bogus” scaling conference. He then describes his stance on how this discussion moved into the range of reversed fees. Hearn states, “Bitcoin Core has a brilliant solution to this problem — allow people to mark their payments as changeable after they’ve been sent, up until they appear in the block chain. The stated intention is to let people adjust the fee paid, but in fact, their change also allows people to change the payment to point back to themselves, thus reversing it. —This protocol change will be released with the next version of Core (0.12), so will activate when the miners upgrade. It was massively condemned by the entire Bitcoin community, but the remaining Bitcoin Core developers don’t care what other people think so that the change will happen.”

Hearn concludes the post by explaining that Bitcoin is in “dangerous” territory, but not all is lost. He says he was happy to work with many of the entrepreneurs in the space and all the innovative minds. But now even after many people from the “uncensored” reddit begged him to stay he is leaving. His final words to the crypto-audience states, “I’m afraid I’ve moved on to other things. To those people I say: good luck, stay strong, and I wish you the best.”

What do you think about Mike Hearn leaving? Let us know in the comments below.


Images courtesy of Pixbay, Twitter, and Shutterstock

 

The post Mike Hearn Has Left The Bitcoin Building appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Mike Hearn Has Left The Bitcoin Building

Share
Led 12

Coinbase Reinstated On Bitcoin.org Website

Source: bitcoin

Coinbase Reinstated On Bitcoin.org Website

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the ongoing Bitcoin block size debate and the stance taken by major companies active in the digital currency world. After Coinbase had announced they were officially supporting Bitcoin XT – which is technically a fork of Bitcoin – the company was removed from Bitcoin.org as a listed Bitcoin exchange novice users should check out. But by the look of things, that decision has been reserved.

Also read: Charlie Lee Opens Up About Coinbase Shift Debit Card

Coinbase Returns On Bitcoin.org

It goes without saying the whole debacle regarding the Bitcoin scalability issue, and Bitcoin XT client has been going for far too long already. Anyone who dared to express their opinion on the matter was greeted with skepticism, derogatory remarks, and deleted comments on Reddit. For some companies openly supporting Bitcoin XT, their services ended up being removed from Bitcoin.org for the time being.

Coinbase was one of the companies affected by this distracting aspect of the Bitcoin ecosystem, as their public support for Bitcoin XT got their listing on Bitcoin.org removed not too long ago. The Bitcoin community was not amused by this decision, as the Coinbase exchange and wallet service is of great value to the digital currency world.

However, a recent commit was posted on GitHub to revert this decision, and get Coinbase reinstated on the Bitcoin.org website. After a public outpouring of support for the company, there was no other option than agree with the majority of the Bitcoin community. As a result, Coinbase is now once again listed on the website under the “web” services.

Theymos, who manages Bitcoin.org, stated the following:

“I think that Coinbase has gone above and beyond on this hardfork issue, so while they’re probably worse than some Web wallets like GreenAddress, I tend to think now that they’re at least not significantly worse than Circle. So while these sorts of Bitcoin banks are allowed, I’m OK with reinstating Coinbase.”

Brian Armstrong’s Clarification Swayed A Lot of Minds

After the original Coinbase announcement regarding them supporting Bitcoin XT, company CEO Brian Armstrong took to Reddit and explained a few things. One of the most important clarifications came in the form of expressing how Coinbase will always support the longest valid Bitcoin blockchain. By saying valid, Brian Armstrong refers to the blockchain with the economic majority.

It is good to see how the Bitcoin community came together to rectify this situation before things had gotten out of hand any further. Splitting the community and developers into separate camps is not what Bitcoin should be about, and we can only hope a final resolution to the block size debate will come sooner rather than later.

What are your thoughts on this reinstatement on Bitcoin.org? Is it the right decision? Let us know in the comments below!

Source; Github

Images courtesy of Coinbase, Shutterstock, Brian Armstrong

The post Coinbase Reinstated On Bitcoin.org Website appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Coinbase Reinstated On Bitcoin.org Website

Share
Led 11

Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks

Source: bitcoin

Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks

Bitcoin Core, an “open source software project that is a direct descendant of the original Bitcoin implementation”, released a statement late last week on its website. The main focus was how Bitcoin consensus rules were changed, which is typically through soft forks and hard forks.

Also read: The Bitcoin Foundation Unveils 2016 Plan, Might Shut Down Instead 

Hard forks and soft forks do virtually the same thing, so Bitcoin Core argues that soft forks are to be preferred as they do not cause the amount of harm on the Bitcoin network as a hard fork can potentially do since users can choose to upgrade to new features when they want to, or remain or the current Bitcoin core version that they are on.

“Soft forks allow compatible changes. With soft forks, old and new software can co-exist on the network. Soft forks can introduce new features without disruption because users who want to use the new features can upgrade, while those who do not are free to continue as normal.”

Hard forks, on the other hand, can be compared to a turn you must take when driving, compared with a soft fork that is like a shortcut. The shortcut is both beneficial and optional, allowing users the chance to either take the shortcut or stick to their current route.

Here the “original road” represents Bitcoin Core before a soft fork. The “shortcut” would represent the soft fork, optional but highly recommended.

Besides the simple convenience factor that soft forks have over hard forks, there’s no disruption in the network that comes from everyone upgrading to the latest version. When there’s a majority of people on two different versions of Bitcoin core, it can lead to dangerous situations where Bitcoin transactions are accepted on one fork, but not on the other.

“Hard forks break compatibility of all previous Bitcoin software and require every participant to upgrade to the same rules by a deadline or risk losing money. Such events can also harm network effects by pushing participants off the network if they take no action, and by potentially breaking downstream software and applications.”

As debates continue to progress regarding new BIP proposals as well as the block size debate, another concern is how any changes to be made on Bitcoin are implemented. Bitcoin Core brings a strong case by suggesting soft forks be used the majority of the time, and hard forks to only be used when a proposed implementation is universally accepted.

What do you think? Should Bitcoin use soft or hard forks? Let us know in the comments below!


 

Photo Source: Wikimedia

The post Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks

Share
Pro 30

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

Source: bitcoin

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

As much as most people would like to think otherwise, the Bitcoin block size debate is far from over. Various new proposals have been suggested in the past, and another interesting concept was posted on Reddit earlier today. According to this user, a small block size increase should be done first, followed by the integration of Segregated Witness. Addressing the key issue as soon as possible should be the top priority for all Bitcoin developers.

Also read: Moe Levin on TNABC Miami 2016, Patrick Byrne Speaking This Year

Two Separate Block Size Solutions Combined Into One

Based on the findings of the Reddit in question, Segregated Witness should not be the first and foremost solution to settling the Bitcoin block size debate. The reason for this is simple: Segregated Witness would split block data into two streams, which will both be stored on the user’s hard disk. As a result, Bitcoin Nodes will still be dealing with an increased block size, making this less of a favorable solution for some users.

Even though the user strongly feels Segregated Witness has its merits, Bitcoin developers have been showing a level of hypocrisy when talking about this solution. When everything’s said and done, bandwidth and disk space requirements will still increase for all parties involved, albeit in slightly smaller sizes compared to other previous proposals. By addressing this solution as a “soft fork”, Bitcoin developers hope to sway the mind of community members into making this the preferred solution.

In addition, it looks like Segregated Witness is more about fixing the transaction malleability system than having to do with the Bitcoin block size debate. While it is important to address transaction malleability sooner rather than later, a solution has to be found to solve the block size debate at the same time, without resorting to the semantic game.

There is no reason a small block size increase can’t be done – it takes a minor alteration to the existing code – and implement Segregated Witness afterward. Keeping in mind how a small block size increase has nearly identical disk footprint requirements compared to segwit, and can be implemented in a much shorter time frame, this approach seems to have a certain merit.

Segregated Witness Needs To Be Tested And Vetted

Even though Segregated Witness is a valid solution, testing and vetting the code base will take weeks, if not months, to complete. Increasing the Bitcoin block size itself is a more pressing matter, as this issue has been kicked around for far too long already. Increasing the block size soonish, and implementing segwit after the vetting process seems to be a smart approach.

Based on the Reddit feedback so far, a lot of Bitcoin community members see the benefits of this two-pronged approach. After all, decisions like these rely on reaching consensus among the bitcoin community. Whether or not the Bitcoin developers will keep this proposal in mind, remains to be seen, though.

What are your thoughts on this block size proposal? Are you in favor of doing things in two different phases? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Reddit

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Peak Usability

The post Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

Share