bitcoinwallet.com

Chinese online Bitcoin wallet Bifubao be the world's 1st that implements gmaxwell's non-fractional-Bitcoin-reserves scheme

Chinese online Bitcoin wallet Bifubao be the world's 1st that implements gmaxwell's non-fractional-Bitcoin-reserves scheme submitted by csf3lih to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

freenode/

freenode.net
[13:47:03] The guide is divided into sections, each with a specific section of activity and a cause for why I should work on that area.
[13:47:03] Those are still facts
[13:47:08] So there is still a little more work to do.
[13:47:15] I need to add all the pages to the wiki.
[13:47:18] After that, I'll start putting more resources up, including some images and if I'm doing it right, some story sections.
[13:47
freenode/ip.92.189.211.175) has joined #/cicada3302
[17:37] O_O
[17:37] damnit
[17:37] dude who's running said server?
[17:37] anyone?
[17:37] I'm at work... http://www.reddit.com/cicada3302/comments/1s3wwz/found_the_code_has_been_decoded_everything_is/cdtr0oa
[17:38]
freenode/ip.50.212.6.250) has joined #bitcoin24
ekdudez: your p2pool network is really part of your bitcoin.dat (A link to your wallet can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/bitcoin/comments/2pq3nx/live_updates_on_the_relay_problem/).
* LQbot (~[email protected]) Quit (Ping timeout: 192 seconds)
ekdudez: your node is NOT part of the bitcoin.dat file, and if it were it wouldn't have a
freenode/ip.39.149.160.167) has joined #/cicada3302
[21:18] or uh, scribe great, wtf?
[21:18] He's come into this room, perhaps from the dark house? So we should return the greeting?
[21:18] (We can't go there. I don't think. He's been there before, but on a cloudy day.)
[21:18] <@shecalledmepaul> no it's been such a while since youve heard anything that I don't think you'll remember
[21:18] <@shecalledmepaul
freenode/ip.54.232.161.153) Quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[10:47] how about talk about the XP drop rate in general?
[10:47] also
[10:47] <@dine909> wait wtf
[10:47] <@dine909> X is 75%
[10:47] <@dine909> of XP
[10:47] i think you have to have very high level to get 95% in dungeons
[10:47] <@dine909> yeah i guess
[10:48] but yeah
[10:48] maybe it has something
freenode/ip.68.56.156.96] has joined #/cicada3302
[01:45] and yes, we have /vaspool/cicada3302/daemon/rules also. anything is possible, we know that
[01:45] not everything though
[01:45] well, some of the entries do not exist
[01:45] So this new detective in the thread goes by "ricardo75"?
[01:46] Hi everyone, I am new here, but I'm quite convinced that whoever made this 2.
submitted by ObsidianMinor to talktotransformer [link] [comments]

Nopara73 re-applies for the 46 btc bounty for his work with the Wasabi Wallet

Cliffs:
Link to the renewed application: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg50438943#msg50438943
submitted by TheGreatMuffin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How have fungiblity problems affected you in Bitcoin?

Privacy and fungiblity are essential components for any money-like system. Without them, your transactions leak information about your private activities and leave you at risk of discriminatory treatment. Without them your security is reduced due to selective targeting and your commercial negotiations can be undermined.
They're important and were consideration's in Bitcoin's design since day one. But Bitcoin's initial approach to preserving privacy and fungiblity -- pseudonymous addresses-- is limited, and full exploitation of it requires less convenient usage patterns that have fallen out of favor.
There are many technologies people have been working on to improve fungiblity and privacy in different ways-- coinjoins and swaps, confidential transactions, encrypted/committed transactions, schnorr multisignature, MAST, better wallet input selection logic, private wallet scanning, tools for address reuse avoidance, P2P encryption, ECDH-derived addresses, P2P surveillance resistance, to name a few.
Having some more in-the-field examples will help prioritize these efforts. So I'm asking here for more examples of where privacy and fungiblity loss have hurt Bitcoin users or just discouraged Bitcoin use-- and, if known, the specifics about how those situations came about.
Please feel free to provide links to other people's examples too, and also feel free to contact me privately ( [email protected] GPG: 0xAC859362B0413BFA ).
submitted by nullc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Don't buy the current massive FUD campaign, keep calm, Hodl and enjoy these facts...

Bitcoin keeps going on stronger than ever and its development is growing fast. Core developers are working really hard and efficiently. Check out this great summary by John Newbery:
https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/928642936555876354
Phew. I'm glad that madness is behind us. If you've been distracted in the last 6 months, you may have missed the real work happening.
We've released the most robust and performant Bitcoin client yet: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.15.0.1/ … (thanks to @orionwl and all contributors!)
Work continues apace on signature aggregation and batch validation (thanks to @pwuille and gmaxwell)
BIP159 is in the works so pruned nodes can serve recent blocks to their peers: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10387 … (thanks to @jonasschnelli)
Bitcoin has taken one small step (or is that a giant leap?) closer to the moon: https://blockstream.com/satellite/ (thanks to @adam3us and the Blockstream satellite team)
The fiber network continues to be made more robust, reducing miner centralization pressure: http://bitcoinfibre.org/ (thanks to @theBlueMatt)
A major Bitcoin service company has rolled out SegWit for over half its customers , cutting fees in half: https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgo-segwit-launch-4732163d2c7f … (thanks to @lopp and @murchandamus)
(shameless plug 😳) I've announced an initiative to help broaden and strengthen the Bitcoin developer community: http://hackerresidency.com
There are three (count 'em) lightning UIs: http://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2017/10/12/test-blitz.htmlhttp://zap.jackmallers.com/ https://github.com/alexbosworth/lnd-gui … (thanks to @roasbeef, @jackmallers and @alexbosworth)
... and work continues on four independent lightning implementations: https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-apphttps://github.com/ElementsProject/lightninghttps://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://github.com/mit-dci/lit (thanks to @starkness, @rusty_twit, @acinq_co and @tdryja)
And in with a bullet, we now have aggregatable range proofs in O(log(n)) size for compact confidential transactions. Bang bang: http://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf …. (thanks to Benedikt Bünz)
Now imagine what we could have achieved together if we weren't also having to write code to protect user funds from a dangerous 2x fork.
Addendum: This list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, but turns out that I forget a bunch of stuff which is just far too cool to exclude.
First up: Neutrino - light clients done right: https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino … (thanks to @roasbeef and @stile65)
Eclair: another really cool looking lightning client:John Newbery added,
Announcing Eclair Wallet, a user-friendly android wallet for Lightning ⚡️https://medium.com/@ACINQ/announcing-eclair-wallet-a8d8c136fc7e … #bitcoinlightning
Three (at least) proposals for MAST (thanks @johnsonlau01, @MarkFriedenbach and Russell O'Connor)
Scaling is coming, ignore the FUD. The most important thing for Bitcoin now is for its main chain to keep its main attributes: Antifragility and Immutability, that's what gives it the status as a safe store of value. To use it to buy a cup of coffee it's not a priority (but we will get there later), just like the Internet, built on a solid base and adding all the needed and desired functionalities with second layer apps.
Also, Note the massive amount of qualified devs working on Bitcoin and those second layer apps vs the few crappy devs on the roger-coin. Which project do you think has more value in the medium and long term?
Edit: Formatting
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

List of qualities needed to dethrone Bitcoin.

Skycoin is 51% attack proof and addresses many of the security issues in Bitcoin. Skycoin is designed to be a simpler, easier to use, more secure Bitcoin. Skycoin emphasizes simplicity, security and usability.
submitted by BobUltra to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is stronger than ever.

Bitcoin keeps going on stronger than ever and its development is growing fast. Core developers are working really hard and efficiently. Check out this great summary by John Newbery:
https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/928642936555876354
Phew. I'm glad that madness is behind us. If you've been distracted in the last 6 months, you may have missed the real work happening.
We've released the most robust and performant Bitcoin client yet: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.15.0.1/ … (thanks to @orionwl and all contributors!)
Work continues apace on signature aggregation and batch validation (thanks to @pwuille and gmaxwell)
BIP159 is in the works so pruned nodes can serve recent blocks to their peers: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10387 … (thanks to @jonasschnelli)
Bitcoin has taken one small step (or is that a giant leap?) closer to the moon: https://blockstream.com/satellite/ (thanks to @adam3us and the Blockstream satellite team)
The fiber network continues to be made more robust, reducing miner centralization pressure: http://bitcoinfibre.org/ (thanks to @theBlueMatt)
A major Bitcoin service company has rolled out SegWit for over half its customers , cutting fees in half: https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgo-segwit-launch-4732163d2c7f … (thanks to @lopp and @murchandamus)
(shameless plug 😳) I've announced an initiative to help broaden and strengthen the Bitcoin developer community: http://hackerresidency.com
There are three (count 'em) lightning UIs: http://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2017/10/12/test-blitz.htmlhttp://zap.jackmallers.com/ https://github.com/alexbosworth/lnd-gui … (thanks to @roasbeef, @jackmallers and @alexbosworth)
... and work continues on four independent lightning implementations: https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-apphttps://github.com/ElementsProject/lightninghttps://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://github.com/mit-dci/lit (thanks to @starkness, @rusty_twit, @acinq_co and @tdryja)
And in with a bullet, we now have aggregatable range proofs in O(log(n)) size for compact confidential transactions. Bang bang: http://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf …. (thanks to Benedikt Bünz)
Now imagine what we could have achieved together if we weren't also having to write code to protect user funds from a dangerous 2x fork.
Addendum: This list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, but turns out that I forget a bunch of stuff which is just far too cool to exclude.
First up: Neutrino - light clients done right: https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino … (thanks to @roasbeef and @stile65)
Eclair: another really cool looking lightning client:John Newbery added,
Announcing Eclair Wallet, a user-friendly android wallet for Lightning ⚡️https://medium.com/@ACINQ/announcing-eclair-wallet-a8d8c136fc7e … #bitcoinlightning
Three (at least) proposals for MAST (thanks @johnsonlau01, @MarkFriedenbach and Russell O'Connor)
Scaling is coming, ignore the FUD. The most important thing for Bitcoin now is for its main chain to keep its main attributes: Antifragility and Immutability, that's what gives it the status as a safe store of value. To use it to buy a cup of coffee it's not a priority (but we will get there later), just like the Internet, built on a solid base and adding all the needed and desired functionalities with second layer apps.
Also, Note the massive amount of qualified devs working on Bitcoin and those second layer apps vs the few crappy devs on the roger-coin. Which project do you think has more value in the medium and long term?
submitted by readish to btc [link] [comments]

In early 2013, it became a common belief that new Bitcoin users should not be recommended Bitcoin-QT, the full node client. Bitcoin.org was changed to no longer exclusively recommend it. Two years later, the block size conservatives are saying the drop in full node count was due to block size

I distinctly remember that the recommending of Bitcoin-QT to new Bitcoin users became a faux pas in early 2013. It was claimed that regular people should download and install an SPV client like Multibit.
Predictably, there was a large drop in the full node count, as the wallet market became dominated by a large number of new, light clients, and the most trafficked Bitcoin website, bitcoin.org, stopped exclusively recommending people to install Bitcoin-QT.
Now, we have important developers like Luke-Jr claiming that this 95% drop in full node count can be mainly attributed to the growing size of the block chain, despite the fact that the drop began right when light clients began being recommended..
EDIT to add some data:
This is the image that GMaxwell and Peter Todd, two individuals who are conservative about the block size (in particular Peter Todd, who's been warning about increasing the 1 MB size limit since 2013), have linked to to make their point about the full node count:
http://i.imgur.com/EL0zHRe.jpg
Up until at least March 18, 2013, the only client recommended to visitors of bitcoin.org was Bitcoin-QT, and an installation link for it was provided right on the landing page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130318211940/http://bitcoin.org/
The WayBack Machine shows that by March 25th, 2013, this had changed, and a 'Choose Your Wallet' button appeared on Bitcoin.org/:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130513214959/http://bitcoin.org/en/
From March 25th 2013 onward, the number of non-full-node wallets recommended by bitcoin.org increased, in response to a general increase in the number of high quality and/or well marketed light and mobile wallets on the market.
Now a days, Bitcoin-QT is one of twelve clients displayed on bitcoin.org's Choose Your Wallet page:
https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
Other than Bitcoin-QT and Bitcoin Armory, all of them are non-full-node clients.
This shift, from a wallet market where only Bitcoin-QT was available and recommended to one that is increasingly diverse and dominated by light clients, coincides with the point (Spring 2013) where we start seeing a rapid decline in the full node count.
submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How can we force miners to activate SegWit?

I think SegWit is a great development and a lot of miners only think about their own profit and political power, not about what the healthiest thing is for longterm bitcoin development.
So here is my question: I read here that nodes somehow can force miners to activate segwit, because otherwise they would loose potential transactions? source
But there are also a lot of (maybe just wrong) counter arguments, that it's not possible with the combined power of the nodes (which currently support segwit with already about more than 50%) - here is the link to bitnodes.21.co statistics
So tell me, is it possible as "normal users" to force miners somehow to use segwit? What can we do?
Edit: I think the idea could be, that nodes start to send segwit transactions (and activate segwit handling) - even if some miners don't accept them. If more and more nodes are sending only segwit transactions, miners would loose profit because they have to leave out a lot of them and are so somehow forced in the longterm to support SegWit.
What would happen if we activate Segwit transactions for wallets NOW?
Edit2: It looks like following points are not common knowledge:
Would also be happy if we can get some technical adivce by laanwj pwuille nullc luke-jr petertodd adam3us gavinandresen gmaxwell jgarzik jonasschnelli sipa (and more hopefully)
submitted by BitcoinReminder_com to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - Reformatted for Reddit

Original post by rethink-your-strategy on Bitcointalk.org here
This post has been reformatted to share on Reddit. What once was common knowledge, is now gone. You want a quality history lesson? Share this like wildfire.
August 15, 2014, 08:15:37 AM

Preamble

I'd like to start off by stating categorically that the cryptography presented by CryptoNote is completely, entirely solid. It has been vetted and looked over by fucking clever cryptographers/developers/wizards such as gmaxwell. Monero have had a group of independent mathematicians and cryptographers peer-reviewing the whitepaper (their annotations are here, and one of their reviews is here), and this same group of mathematicians and cryptographers is now reviewing the implementation of the cryptography in the Monero codebase. Many well known Bitcoin developers have already had a cursory look through the code to establish its validity. It is safe to say that, barring more exotic attacks that have to be mitigated over time as they are invented/discovered, and barring a CryptoNote implementation making rash decisions to implement something that reduces the anonymity set, the CryptoNote currencies are all cryptographically unlinkable and untraceable.
Two other things I should mention. I curse a lot when I'm angry (and scams like this make me angry). Second, where used my short date format is day/month/year (smallest to biggest).
If you find this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.

The Alleged CryptoNote/Bytecoin Story

CryptoNote is a new cryptocurrency protocol. It builds on some of the Bitcoin founding principles, but it adds to them. There are aspects of it that are truly well thought through and, in a sense, quite revolutionary. CryptoNote claim to have started working on their project years ago after Bitcoin's release, and I do not doubt the validity of this claim...clearly there's a lot of work and effort that went into this. The story as Bytecoin and CryptoNote claim it to be is as follows:
They developed the code for the principles expressed in their whitepaper, and in April, 2012, they released Bytecoin. All of the copyright messages in Bytecoin's code are "copyright the CryptoNote Developers", so clearly they are one and the same as the Bytecoin developers. In December 2012, they released their CryptoNote v1 whitepaper. In September 2013, they released their CryptoNote v2 whitepaper. In November 2013, the first piece of the Bytecoin code was first pushed to Github by "amjuarez", with a "Copyright (c) 2013 amjuarez" copyright notice. This was changed to "Copyright (c) 2013 Antonio Juarez" on March 3rd, 2014. By this juncture only the crypto libraries had been pushed up to github. Then, on March 4th, 2014, "amjuarez" pushed the rest of the code up to github, with the README strangely referring to "cybernote", even though the code referred to "Cryptonote". The copyrights all pointed to "the Cryptonote developers", and the "Antonio Juarez" copyright and license file was removed. Within a few days, "DStrange" stumbled across the bytecoin.org website when trying to mine on the bte.minefor.co.in pool (a pool for the-other-Bytecoin, BTE, not the-new-Bytecoin, BCN), and the rest is history as we know it. By this time Bytecoin had had a little over 80% of its total emission mined.

Immediate Red Flags

The first thing that is a red flag in all of this is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, is a known entity. "Antonio Juarez" is not a known entity, "DStrange" is not a known entity, none of the made up names on the Bytecoin website exist (they've since removed their "team" page, see below), none of the made up names on the CryptoNote website exist (Johannes Meier, Maurice Planck, Max Jameson, Brandon Hawking, Catherine Erwin, Albert Werner, Marec Plíškov). If they're pseudonyms, then say so. If they're real names, then who the fuck are they??? Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are well known - they have published papers or at least have commented on articles of interest. Many of them have their own github repos and Twitter feeds, and are a presence in the cryptocurrency community.
The other immediate red flag is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, had heard of Bytecoin. Those that had heard of it thought it was the crummy SHA-256 Bitcoin clone that was a flop in the market. Bytecoin's claim that it had existed "on the deep web" for 2 years was not well received, because not a single vendor, user, miner, drug addict, drug seller, porn broker, fake ID card manufacturer, student who bought a fake ID card to get into bars, libertarian, libertard, cryptographer, Tor developer, Freenet developer, i2p developer, pedophile, or anyone else that is a known person - even just known on the Internet - had ever encountered "Bytecoin" on Tor. Ever. Nobody.

Indisputable Facts

Before I start with some conjecture and educated guesswork, I'd like to focus on an indisputable fact that obliterates any trust in both Bytecoin's and CryptoNote's bullshit story. Note, again, that I do not doubt the efficacy of the mathematics and cryptography behind CryptoNote, nor do I think there are backdoors in the code. What I do know for a fact is that the people behind CryptoNote and Bytecoin have actively deceived the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community, and that makes them untrustworthy now and in the future. If you believe in the fundamentals in CryptoNote, then you need simply use a CryptoNote-derived cryptocurrency that is demonstrably independent of CryptoNote and Bytecoin's influence. Don't worry, I go into this a little later.
So as discussed, there were these two whitepapers that I linked to earlier. Just in case they try remove them, here is the v1 whitepaper and the v2 whitepaper mirrored on Archive.org. This v1/v2 whitepaper thing has been discussed at length on the Bytecoin forum thread, and the PGP signature on the files has been confirmed as being valid. When you open the respective PDFs you'll notice the valid signatures in them:
signature in the v1 whitepaper
signature in the v2 whitepaper
These are valid Adobe signatures, signed on 15/12/2012 and 17/10/2013 respectively. Here's where it gets interesting. When we inspect this file in Adobe Acrobat we get a little more information on the signature
.
Notice the bit that says "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer"? Now normally you would use a Timestamp Authority (TSA) to validate your system time. There are enough public, free, RFC 3161 compatible TSAs that this is not a difficult thing. CryptoNote chose not do this. But we have no reason to doubt the time on the signature, right guys? crickets
.
See these references from the v1 whitepaper footnotes? Those two also appear in the v2 whitepaperth. Neither of those two footnotes refer to anything in the main body of the v1 whitepaper's text, they're non-existent (in the v2 whitepaper they are used in text). The problem, though, is that the Bitcointalk post linked in the footnote is not from early 2012 (proof screenshot is authentic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196259.0)
.
May 5, 2013. The footnote is referencing a post that did not exist until then. And yet we are to believe that the whitepaper was signed on 12/12/2012! What sort of fucking fools do they take us for?
A little bit of extra digging validates this further. The document properties for both the v1 whitepaper as well as the v2 whitepaper confirms they were made in TeX Live 2013, which did not exist on 12/12/2012. The XMP properties are also quite revealing
XMP properties for the v1 whitepaper
XMP properties for the v2 whitepaper
According to that, the v1 whitepaper PDF was created on 10/04/2014, and the v2 whitepaper was created on 13/03/2014. And yet both of these documents were then modified in the past (when they were signed). Clearly the CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are so advanced they also have a time machine, right?
Final confirmation that these creation dates are correct are revealed those XMP properties. The properties on both documents confirm that the PDF itself was generated from the LaTeX source using pdfTeX-1.40.14 (the pdf:Producer property). Now pdfTeX is a very old piece of software that isn't updated very often, so the minor version (the .14 part) is important.
.
pdfTeX 1.40.14 pushed to source repo on Feb 14, 2014
.
This version of pdfTeX was only pushed to the pdfTeX source repository on February 14, 2014, although it was included in a very early version of TeX Live 2013 (version 2013.20130523-1) that was released on May 23, 2013. The earliest mentions on the Internet of this version of pdfTeX are in two Stack Exchange comments that confirm its general availability at the end of May 2013 (here and here).
The conclusion we draw from this is that the CryptoNote developers, as clever as they were, intentionally deceived everyone into believing that the CryptoNote whitepapers were signed in 2012 and 2013, when the reality is that the v2 whitepaper was created in March, 2014, and the v1 whitepaper haphazardly created a month later by stripping bits out of the v2 whitepaper (accidentally leaving dead footnotes in).
Why would they create this fake v2 whitepaper in the first place? Why not just create a v1 whitepaper, or not even version it at all? The answer is simple: they wanted to lend credence and validity to the Bytecoin "2 years on the darkweb" claim so that everyone involved in CryptoNote and Bytecoin could profit from the 2 year fake mine of 82% of Bytecoin. What they didn't expect is the market to say "no thank you" to their premine scam.

And Now for Some Conjecture

As I mentioned earlier, the Bytecoin "team" page disappeared. I know it exists, because "AtomicDoge" referred to it as saying that one of the Bytecoin developers is a professor at Princeton. I called them out on it, and within a week the page had disappeared. Fucking cowards.
That was the event that triggered my desire to dig deeper and uncover the fuckery. As I discovered more and more oddities, fake accounts, trolling, and outright falsehoods, I wondered how deep the rabbit hole went. My starting point was DStrange. This is the account on Bitcointalk that "discovered" Bytecoin accidentally a mere 6 days after the first working iteration of the code was pushed to Github, purely by chance when mining a nearly dead currency on a tiny and virtually unheard of mining pool. He has subsequently appointed himself the representative of Bytecoin, or something similar. The whole thing is so badly scripted it's worse than a Spanish soap opera...I can't tell who Mr. Gonzales, the chief surgeon, is going to fuck next.
At the same time as DStrange made his "fuck me accidental discovery", another Bitcointalk account flared up to also "accidentally discover this weird thing that has randomly been discovered": Rias. What's interesting about both the "Rias" and "DStrange" accounts are their late 2013 creation date (October 31, 2013, and December 23, 2013, respectively), and yet they lay dormant until suddenly, out of the blue, on January 20th/21st they started posting. If you look at their early posts side by side you can even see the clustering: Rias, DStrange.
At any rate, the DStrange account "discovering" Bytecoin is beyond hilarious, especially with the Rias account chiming in to make the discovery seem natural. Knowing what we unmistakably do about the fake CryptoNote PDF dates lets us see this in a whole new light.
Of course, as has been pointed out before, the Bytecoin website did not exist in its "discovered" form until sometime between November 13, 2013 (when it was last captured as this random picture of a college girl) and February 25, 2014 (when it suddenly had the website on it as "discovered"). This can be confirmed by looking at the captures on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bytecoin.org
The CryptoNote website, too, did not exist in its current form until after October 20, 2013, at which time it was still the home of an encrypted message project by Alain Meier, a founding member of the Stanford Bitcoin Group and co-founder of BlockScore. This, too, can be confirmed on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cryptonote.org
~It's hard to ascertain whether Alain had anything to do with CryptoNote or Bytecoin. It's certainly conceivable that the whitepaper was put together by him and other members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group, and the timeline fits, given that the group only formed around March 2013. More info on the people in the group can be found on their site, and determining if they played a role is something you can do in your own time.~
Update: Alain Meier posted in this thread, and followed it up with a Tweet, confirming that he has nothing to do with CryptoNote and all the related...stuff.

Batshit Insane

The Bytecoin guys revel in creating and using sockpuppet accounts. Remember that conversation where "Rias" asked who would put v1 on a whitepaper with no v2 out, and AlexGR said "a forward looking individual"? The conversation took place on May 30, and was repeated verbatim by shill accounts on Reddit on August 4 (also, screenshot in case they take it down).
Those two obvious sockpuppet/shill accounts also take delight in bashing Monero in the Monero sub-reddit (here are snippets from WhiteDynomite and cheri0). Literally the only thing these sockpuppets do, day in and day out, is make the Bytecoin sub-reddit look like it's trafficked, and spew angry bullshit all over the Monero sub-reddit. Fucking batshit insane - who the fuck has time for that? Clearly they're pissy that nobody has fallen for their scam. Oh, and did I mention that all of these sockpuppets have a late January/early February creation date? Because that's not fucking obvious at all.
And let's not forget that most recently the sockpuppets claimed that multi-sig is "a new revolutionary technology, it was discovered a short time ago and Bytecoin already implemented it". What the actual fuck. If you think that's bad, you're missing out on the best part of all: the Bytecoin shills claim that Bytecoin is actually Satoshi Nakamoto's work. I'm not fucking kidding you. For your viewing pleasure...I present to you...the Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus:
.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.msg8354977#msg8354977
.
Seriously. Not only is this insulting as fuck to Satoshi Nakamoto, but it's insulting as fuck to our intelligence. And yet the fun doesn't stop there, folks! I present to you...the centerpiece of this Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus exhibit...
.
Of course! How could we have missed it! The clues were there all along! The CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are actually aliens! Fuck me on a pogostick, this is the sort of stuff that results in people getting committed to the loony bin.
One last thing: without doing too much language analysis (which is mostly supposition and bullshit), it's easy to see common grammar and spelling fuck ups. My personal favorite is the "Is it true?" question. You can see it in the Bytecoin thread asking if it's Satoshi's second project, in the Monero thread asking if the Monero devs use a botnet to fake demand, and in the Dashcoin thread confirming the donation address (for a coin whose only claim is that they copy Bytecoin perfectly, what the fuck do they need donations for??).

Layer After Layer

One of the things that happened soon after the Bytecoin "big reveal" was a string of forks popping up. The first was Bitmonero on April 18. Fantomcoin was launched May 6. Quazarcoin was launched May 8. HoneyPenny was announced on April 21, although only launched as Boolberry on May 17. duckNote was launched on May 30. MonetaVerde as launched June 17.
Now for some reason unbeknownst to anyone with who isn't a retarded fuckface, the Bytecoin code was pushed up to SourceForge on 08/04/2014 (the "Registered" date is at the bottom of the page). I have no idea why they did this, maybe it's to try and lend credence to their bullshit story (oh hey, look how old Bytecoin is, it's even on Sourceforge!)
Coincidentally, and completely unrelated (hurr durr), Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin, and Monetaverde are all also on Sourceforge. This gives us a frame of reference and a common link between them - it's quite clear that at least these three are run by the same team as CryptoNote. There is further anecdotal evidence that can be gathered by looking at the shill posts in the threads (especially the way the Moneteverda shills praise merge mining, in a way that is nearly fucking indistinguishable from the Bytecoin praise for multi-sig technology).
QuazarCoin is a special case and deserves a little attention. Let's start with OracionSeis, who launched it. He's well known on Bitcointalk for selling in-game currencies. In that same thread you'll notice this gem right at the end from Fullbuster: "Hey,OracionSeis is no longer under my use so please https://bitcointa.lk/threads/selling-most-of-the-game-currencies.301540/#post-5996983 come into this thread! thank you !" Click through to his new link and Fullbuster clarifies: "Hello, I may look new around here but i've sold my first account and created new one and i have an intention to keep the same services running as my first account did." So now that we know that OracionSeis is a fucking bought account, we can look at his actions a little more critically.
On May 7, just when Monero was being taken back by the community (see below), OracionSeis out of the blue decided to take it overelaunch it himself. This included a now-defunct website at monero.co.in, and a since-abandoned Github. The community pushed back hard, true to form, with hard-hitting statements such as "To reiterate, this is not the original devs, and thus not a relaunch. OP, fuck you for trying this. This should warrant a ban." A man after my own heart. OracionSeis caved and decided to rename it to...QuazarCoin, which launched on May 8. To recap: bought account, launched by trying to "relaunch" Monero, got fucked up, renamed it to QuazarCoin. Clearly and undeniably goes in our pile of fuckface coins.
The other three are a little more interesting. Let's start with ~fuckNote~duckNote. It's hard to say if duckNote is a CryptoNote/Bytecoin project. The addition of the HTML based wallet is a one-trick pony, a common thread among most of the CryptoNote/Bytecoin controlled coins, but that could also be the result of a not-entirely-retarded developer. Given the shill posts in the duckNote thread I'm going to flag it as possibly-controlled-by-the-fuckface-brigade.
And now we come to ~HoneyPenny~ ~MoneyPenny~ ~HoneyBerry~ ~Boolean~ Boolberry. This is an interesting one. This was "pre-announced" on April 21, although it was only released with the genesis block on May 17. This puts it fourth in line, after Fantomcoin and Quazarcoin, although fucktarded proponents of the shittily-named currency insist that it was launched on April 21 because of a pre-announcement. Fucking rejects from the Pool of Stupidity, some of them. At any rate, "cryptozoidberg" is the prolific coder that churned out a Keccak-derived PoW (Wild Keccak) in a month, and then proceeded to add completely fucking retarded features like address aliasing that requires you to mine a block to get an address (lulz) and will never cause any issues when "google" or "obama" or "zuckerberg" want their alias back. Namecoin gets around this by forcing you to renew every ~200 - 250 days, and besides, nobody is making payments to microsoft.bit. This aliasing system is another atypical one-trick-pony that the CryptoNote developers push out and claim is monumental and historical and amazing.
There's also the matter of cryptozoidberg's nickname. In the Bytecoin code there's the BYTECOIN_NETWORK identifiert, which according to the comment is "Bender's nightmare" (hurr durr, such funny, 11100111110001011011001210110110 has a 2 in it). Now this may be a little bit of conjecture, yo, but the same comment appears twice in the "epee" contributed library, once in the levin signature, and again in the portable storage signature. The contexts are so disconnected and different that it would be a fucking stretch to imagine that the same person did not write both of these. We can also rule out this being a Bytecoin-specific change, as the "Bender's nightmare" comments exist in the original epee library on githubw (which is completely unused anywhere on the planet except in Bytecoin, most unusual for a library that has any usefulness, and was first committed to github on February 9, 2014).
We know from the copyright that Andrey N. Sabelnikov is the epee author, and we can say with reasonable certainty that he was involved in Bytecoin's creation and is the dev behind Boolberry. Sabelnikov is quite famous - he wrote the Kelihos botnet code and worked at two Russian security firms, Microsoft took him to court for his involvement (accusing him of operating the botnet as well), and then settled with him out of court on the basis of him not running the botnet but just having written the code. Kelihos is a botnet that pumped out online pharmacy spam (you know the fucking annoying "Y-ou Ne3D Vi-4Gra!?" emails? those.) so it's good to see he transitioned from that to a cryptocurrency scam. Regardless of BBR's claim to have "fixed" CryptoNote's privacy (and the fake fight on Bitcointalk between the "Bytecoin devs" and cryptozoidberg), it's clear that the link between them is not transparent. BBR is either the brainchild of a spam botnet author that worked on Bytecoin, or it's the CryptoNote developers trying to have one currency distanced from the rest so that they have a claim for legitimacy. I think it's the second one, and don't want to enter into a fucking debate about it. Make up your own mind.
Which brings us to the oddest story of the bunch: Bitmonero. It's pretty clear, given its early launch date and how unfamiliar anyone was with creating a genesis block or working in completely undocumented code, that thankful_for_today is/was part of the CryptoNote developers. He made a fatal error, though: he thought (just like all the other cryptocurrencies) that being "the dev" made him infallible. Ya know what happened? He tried to force his ideas, the community politely said "fuck you", and Bitmonero was forked into Monero, which is leading the pack of CryptoNote-based coins today. Let me be perfectly fucking clear: it doesn't matter that the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers know their code and can push stuff out, and it doesn't matter that Sabelnikov can shovel bullshit features into his poorly named cryptocurrency, and it doesn't matter that Monetaverde is "green" and has "merged mining". Nobody working behind these cryptocurrencies is known in the cryptocurrency community, and that alone should be a big fucking red flag. Monero is streets ahead, partly because of the way they're developing the currency, but mostly because the "core devs" or whatever they're called are made up of reasonably well-known people. That there are a bunch of them (6 or 7?) plus a bunch of other people contributing code means that they're sanity checking each other.
And, as we saw, this has fucking infuriated the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers. They're so angry they waste hours and hours with their Reddit accounts trawling the Monero sub-reddit, for what? Nobody has fallen for their scam, and after my revelation today nobody fucking will. Transparency wins, everything else is bullshit.
As pointed out by canonsburg, when the Bytecoin/CryptoNote people realised they'd lost the fucking game, they took a "scorched earth" approach. If they couldn't have the leading CryptoNote coin...they'd fucking destroy the rest by creating a shit-storm of CryptoNote coins. Not only did they setup a thread with "A complete forking guide to create your own CryptoNote currency", but they even have a dedicated website with a fuckton of JavaScript. Unfortunately this plan hasn't worked for them, because they forgot that nobody gives a fuck, and everyone is going to carry on forking Bitcoin-based coins because of the massive infrastructure and code etc. that works with Bitcoin-based coins.
There are a bunch of other useless CryptoNote coins, by the way: Aeon, Dashcoin, Infinium-8, OneEvilCoin. We saw earlier that Dashcoin is probably another CryptoNote developer driven coin. However, this entire group is not really important enough, nor do they have enough potential, for me to give a single fuck, so make up your own mind. New CryptoNote coins that pop up should be regarded with the utmost caution, given the bullshit capabilities that we've already seen.

All Tied Up in a Bow

I want to cement the relationship between the major CryptoNote shitcoins. I know that my previous section had a lot of conjecture in it, and there's been some insinuation that I'm throwing everyone under the bus because I'm raging against the machine. That's not my style. I'm more of a Katy Perry fan..."you're going to hear me roar". There were some extra links I uncovered during my research, and I lacked the time to add it to this post. Thankfully a little bit of sleep and a can of Monster later have given me the a chance to add this. Let's start with an analysis of the DNS records of the CN coins.
If we look at the whois and DNS records for bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com, we find three common traits, from not-entirely-damming to oh-shiiiiiiit:
  1. There's a lot of commonality with the registrar (NameCheap for almost all of them), the DNS service (HurricaneElectric's Free DNS or NameCheap's DNS), and with the webhost (LibertyVPS, QHosteSecureFastServer.com, etc.)
  2. All of the CN domains use WhoisGuard or similar private registration services.
  3. Every single domain, without exception, uses Zoho for email. The only outlier is bitmonero.org that uses Namecheap's free email forwarding, but it's safe to disregard this as the emails probably just forward to the CryptoNote developers' email.
The instinct may be to disregard this as a fucking convenient coincidence. But it isn't: Zoho used to be a distant second go Google Apps, but has since fallen hopelessly behind. Everyone uses Google Apps or they just use mail forwarding or whatever. With the rest of the points as well, as far-fetched as the link may seem, it's the combination that is unusual and a dead giveaway of the common thread. Just to demonstrate that I'm not "blowing shit out of proportion" I went and checked the records for a handful of coins launched over the past few months to see what they use.
darkcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: Amazon AWS, open registration through NameCheap monero.cc: mail: mail.monero.cc, hosting: behind CloudFlare, open registration through Gandi xc-official.com: mail: Google Apps, hosting: MODX Cloud, hidden registration (DomainsByProxy) through GoDaddy blackcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: behind BlackLotus, open registration through NameCheap bitcoindark.org: mail: no MX records, hosting: Google User Content, open registration through Wix viacoin.org: mail: mx.viacoin.org, hosting: behind CloudFlare, closed registration (ContactPrivacy) through Hostnuke.com neutrinocoin.org: mail: HostGator, hosting: HostGator, open registration through HostGator
There's no common thread between them. Everyone uses different service providers and different platforms. And none of them use Zoho.
My next check was to inspect the web page source code for these sites to find a further link. If you take a look at the main CSS file linked in the source code for monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, bitmonero.org, and bytecoiner.org, we find a CSS reset snippet at the top. It has a comment at the top that says "/* CSS Reset /", and then where it resets/sets the height it has the comment "/ always display scrollbars */". Now, near as I can find, this is a CSS snipped first published by Jake Rocheleau in an article on WebDesignLedger on October 24, 2012 (although confusingly Google seems to think it appeared on plumi.de cnippetz first, but checking archive.org shows that it was only added to that site at the beginning of 2013). It isn't a very popular CSS reset snippet, it got dumped in a couple of gists on Github, and translated and re-published in an article on a Russian website in November, 2012 (let's not go full-blown conspiritard and assume this links "cryptozoidberg" back to this, he's culpable enough on his own).
It's unusual to the point of being fucking impossible for one site to be using this, let alone a whole string of supposedly unrelated sites. Over the past few years the most popular CSS reset scripts have been Eric Meyer's "Reset CSS", HTML5 Doctor CSS Reset, Yahoo! (YUI 3) Reset CSS, Universal Selector ‘’ Reset, and Normalize.css, none of which contain the "/ CSS Reset /" or "/ always display scrollbars */" comments.
You've got to ask yourself a simple question: at what point does the combination of all of these fucking coincidental, completely unusual elements stop being coincidence and start becoming evidence of a real, tenable link? Is it possible that bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com just happen to use similar registrars/DNS providers/web hosts and exactly the fucking same wildly unpopular email provider? And is it also possible that monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, and bytecoin.org just happen to use the same completely unknown, incredibly obscure CSS reset snippet? It's not a conspiracy, it's not a coincidence, it's just another piece of evidence that all of these were spewed out by the same fucking people.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Don't take the last section as any sort of push for Monero. I think it's got potential (certainly much more than the other retarded "anonymous" coins that "developers" are popping out like street children from a cheap ho), and I hold a bit of XMR for shits and giggles, so take that tacit endorsement with a pinch of fucking salt.
The point is this: Bytecoin's 82% premine was definitely the result of a faked blockchain. CryptoNote's whitepaper dates were purposely falsified to back up this bullshit claim. Both Bytecoin and CryptoNote have perpetuated this scam by making up fake website data and all sorts. They further perpetuate it using shill accounts, most notably "DStrange" and "Rias" among others.
They launched a series of cryptocurrencies that should be avoided at all cost: Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, and Monetaverde. They are likely behind duckNote and Boolberry, but fuck it, it's on your head if you want to deal with scam artists and botnet creators.
They developed amazing technology, and had a pretty decent implementation. They fucked themselves over by being fucking greedy, being utterly retarded, being batshit insane, and trying to create legitimacy where there was none. They lost the minute the community took Monero away from them, and no amount of damage control will save them from their own stupidity.
I expect there to be a fuck-ton of shills posting in this thread (and possibly a few genuine supporters who don't know any better). If you want to discuss or clarify something, cool, let's do that. If you want to have a protracted debate about my conjecture, then fuck off, it's called conjecture for a reason you ignoramus. I don't really give a flying fuck if I got it right or wrong, you're old and ugly enough to make up your own mind.
tl;dr - CryptoNote developers faked dates in whitepapers. Bytecoin faked dates in fake blockchain to facilitate an 82% premine, and CryptoNote backed them up. Bytecoin, Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, Monetaverde, Dashcoin are all from the same people and should be avoided like the fucking black plague. duckNote and Boolberry are probably from them as well, or are at least just fucking dodgy, and who the fuck cares anyway. Monero would have been fucking dodgy, but the community saved it. Make your own mind up about shit and demand that known people are involved and that there is fucking transparency. End transmission.
Just a reminder that if you found this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.
submitted by OsrsNeedsF2P to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-11-12)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization Note that I crosspost this to Voat, bitcoin.com and the bitcoin-discuss mailing list every week. I can't control what's being talking about in the meeting, if certain things come up I might not be able to post here because of "guidelines".
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
transaction priority for 0.12 Opt-in replace-by-fee Versionbits Chain limits
transaction priority for 0.12
Each transaction is assigned a priority, determined by the age, size, and number of inputs. Which currently makes some transactions free. This currently has a large amount of code, which makes it harder to maintain, and is not that optimal since you can't expect miners to include 0-fee transactions.
Most people seem fine with removing priority in the mempool, but people should be notified ahead of time this is coming. sdaftuar proposed a staggered approach, setting the default value for priority to 0, and remove it entirely in the next release. petertodd notes there will be a natural staggered process since not everyone will upgrade to 0.12 instantly and some implementations might not remove priority at all. Most wallet-software outside of bitcoin-core don't implement priority calculations. As fee estimation becomes more important and many wallet providers use the bitcoin-core fee estimation, improvements on that are welcome. Luke-Jr doesn't agree with removing priority, particularly with changing the mining code to use the priority a transaction has when it enters the mempool. Sipa has the idea to add a small fraction of bitcoin days destroyed divided by the average UTXO age to the fee, so that non-spam-attack transactions are viewed as if they have a larger fee.
While most agree with the proposal to remove the current priority, there's still much debate on whether it needs to be replaced for 0.13, and if so, how.
Review "Improve usage of fee estimation code" BlueMatt will mail the developer mailinglist announcing the changes. ( https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02790.html )
Opt-in replace-by-fee
Currently when a node sees a transaction that spends the same output it ignores it. With replace-by-fee it replaces the current transaction in the mempool if it has a higher fee. This allows for things like spending "stuck" transactions, adding more recipients to a transaction in order to prevent chaining, etc.
Since there are people that accept 0-confirmation transactions and this would make it extremely easy to double spend them, this is made opt-in. The sender can choose to opt-in to replace-by-fee by changing an input in the nSequence field.
Peter Todd wrote some tools to use replace-by-fee. link It would be nice to have opt-in per output instead of the whole transaction, however that would be very hard to implement and would have some privacy concerns. Luke-Jr would like to see an option to toggle between first-seen-safe/full RBF and neveopt-in/always. Since there are possibly some objections with the "always" toggle it should be a separate pull-request.
review and merge nSequence-based Full-RBF opt-in Peter Todd will write a mail to the list to explain how it works and how people can not accept opt-in transactions.
Versionbits
BIP 9 Currently softforks have been done by the isSuperMajority mechanism, meaning when 95% of the last X blocks has a version number higher than Y the fork is deployed. A new way of doing this is currently being worked on and that uses all bits of the version number, appropriately being called versionbits. So instead of a fork happening when the version is larger than (for example) 00000000011 (3), a fork happens when (for example) the 3rd bit is up (so 00100000011). This way softforks can be deployed simultaneous and independent of each other.
There are 2 different implementations. One from Codeshark and one from Rusty jtimon thinks both implementations are more complicated than they need to be. There needs to be a minor revision namely a starting time for proposals. In general we'd like to get this in soon, but existing softforks need to complete first.
CodeShark adds a starting time to versionbits.
Chain limits
Chain in this context means connected transactions. When you send a transaction that depends on another transaction that has yet to be confirmed we talk about a chain of transactions. Miners ideally take the whole chain into account instead of just every single transaction (although that's not widely implemented afaik). So while a single transaction might not have a sufficient fee, a depending transaction could have a high enough fee to make it worthwhile to mine both. This is commonly known as child-pays-for-parent. Since you can make these chains very big it's possible to clog up the mempool this way. With the recent malleability attacks, anyone who made transactions going multiple layers deep would've already encountered huge problems doing this (beautifully explained in let's talk bitcoin #258 from 13:50 onwards) Proposal and github link.
Wumpus doesn't feel comfortable with merging it because there's some controversy from companies who exceed the limits (or could be/want to). jgarzik does feel comfortable with it, and many think it should be merged as it's easy to revert if needed. There's little choice as it's not safe from attacks without limits. We should communicate the replace-by-fee sendmany alternative to long chains (adding new recipients on existing non-confirmed transactions), although it won't show up in users wallet yet and block-explorers probably aren't ready to display it correctly. Emphasis on the fact it's a change in default values, not a consensus change, however default values have a lot of power. The final limits are 25 transactions and 101kb total size for both ancestor and descendant packages.
jgarzik will merge the pull-request. Morcos will mail the list once it's merged.
Participants
BlueMatt Matt Corallo petertodd Peter Todd morcos Alex Morcos jgarzik Jeff Garzik gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr jtimon Jorge Timón btcdrak btcdrak phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman sipa Pieter Wuille CodeShark Eric Lombrozo sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar jg_taxi jg_taxi gavinandresen Gavin Andresen cfields Cory Fields bsm1175321 Bob McElrath 
Comic relief
19:53 sipa new topic? 19:53 wumpus any other topics? 19:53 petertodd  19:53 jgarzik did we cover jonas while I was in the taxi? 19:54 sdaftuar ? 19:54 jtimon ? 19:54 CodeShark not sure I want to know 19:54 jgarzik proposal for new GUI maintainer 19:54 CodeShark sounds kinky, though 19:54 petertodd CodeShark: GUI's are pretty kinky 19:56 BlueMatt ok, end meeting? 19:56 btcdrak if we can remember the command this week :-) 19:56 wumpus #meetingend 19:56 gmaxwell #destroymeeting 19:56 wumpus #endmeeting 19:56 Luke-Jr #endmeeting 19:56 lightningbot Meeting ended Thu Nov 12 19:56:42 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 19:56 BlueMatt #magicmeetbotincantation 19:57 petertodd #DoWhatIMean 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Please Protect Consumers by Using Stealth Addressing

It's recently been brought to attention that various companies have been heavy handed in their restrictions of how one may spend their purchased coins. I'm writing this up so that people can have a basic understanding of stealth addressing and how it works. If you'd like more details on the cryptography behind stealth addresses, please refer yourself to 13.4.3 of Wiley's Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics.
A stealth address looks like this: vJmwY32eS5VDC2C4GaZyXt7i4iCjzSMZ1XSd6KbkA7QbGE492akT2eZZMjCwWDqKRSYhnSA8Bgp78KeAYFVCi8ke5mELdoYMBNep7L
When you send funds to a stealth address, you create a data containing (OP_RETURN) output and a normal output to a one-time use Bitcoin address. The latter output contains the money you actually wish to send, while the former output contains some data which looks, to observers of the blockchain, like a bunch of indecipherable garbage.
Here's an example:
Tx hash 6ea5c6f1a97f382f87523d13ef9f2ef17b828607107efdbba42a80b8a6555356 https://blockchain.info/tx/6ea5c6f1a97f382f87523d13ef9f2ef17b828607107efdbba42a80b8a6555356
So, when you send money from Bob to Alice using a stealth address, what's basically going on from a privacy perspective?
To everyone else observing, it's impossible to tell that Alice was sent money. The only thing that they can tell is that Bob sent money to a stealth output, and that's if Bob himself didn't receive his funds as the result of stealth output and his address is somehow already known.
Using stealth addresses, it will be impossible for someone to tell where your money is being sent. The only thing obviously visible is the amount sent. In the future, a Bitcoin sidechain, such as that proposed by andytoshi and gmaxwell, may have mandatory stealth addressing as found in altcoins such as Monero; however, the technology is currently available for use in Bitcoin using simple OP_RETURN scripts.
There is a downside to this technology: to receive coins, you need to scan every incoming Bitcoin transaction to see if it might have an output belonging to you. However, I'm sure if you care about the privacy of your customers and their ability to be able to send funds to you in the future, the benefits more than outweigh the costs!
Current software/clients supporting stealth transactions include:
Hopefully, more soon!
Additional, for free references if you don't want have access to the Wiley book:
https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/DarkWallet/Stealth
http://sx.dyne.org/stealth.html
submitted by therealtacotime to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-28)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain

Logs

Main topics

Short topics

ajtowns has written some functional test scripts for OP_CSV which will be helpful for testing #7184(BIP 68) and #6564(BIP 112)

Refactoring window

background

jtimon asks when exactly this is and what it entails. Refactoring is moving code around to specific libraries or files to make things easier to read and to safely change parts of the code without affecting other parts. Mainly these will be moves to facilitate libconsensus, the part that will hold all the consensus-critical code.

meeting comments

Wumpus is fine with starting to merge moveonly stuff. The refactors might interfere with segregated witness, however waiting for it might cause the refactor window for 0.13 to be missed.

meeting conclusion

Refactor window is from now till -undecided- Review #7091, #7287, #7310 and #7311

outstanding issues for 0.12.0

background

Bitcoin Core 0.12 is scheduled for release around February and introduces a lot of fixes and improvements. (release notes) There's a release candidate 0.12rc2 available at https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.12.0/test/

meeting comments

We need to sign the win32 release with a new key for win7+ as the current key uses sha-1 which is broken. There's still some controversy how the changes for priority should be noted in the release notes. e.g. #7346 gmaxwell points out we never did anything about the issues with localhost being whitelisted which might cause issues with the new automatic hidden service creation. This issue was raised in the 2015/12/03 meeting

meeting conclusion

There will be a new key, if it takes too long to get it someone else can sign it this time. gmaxwell will change #7082 to only remove the privledging of localhost. The rest of the PR can be done for 12.1/0.13

how does this new "critical" OpenSSL release affect us

background

There's a new openSSL release which fixes some security issues. https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-January/000061.html Question is if and how this affects bitcoin. Since 0.12 bitcoin-core uses their own libsecp256k1 for ECDSA signature verification instead of openSSL.

meeting comments

BIP70 (Payment Protocol) might be affected. The parts of core that still depend on openSSL are entropy, AES (wallet) and BIP70. There's a plan to replace openSSL for entropy with fortuna (build by sipa and gmaxwell), which needs to be build into a separate library. There are many complications in making a safe random number generator, first among them is fork detection (fork= a unix operation which duplicates the entire process state which will lead to reuse of random numbers) Wumpus notes openSSL has the same issues and we only have to be better than openSSL, also bitcoin never forks so the problem is mainly for other applications using the library. It would be good if this was an effort which included non-bitcoin users (e.g. mailinglist & tor)

meeting conclusion

Long term goal is leaving openSSL only for BIP70.

Participants

wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell petertodd Peter Todd jtimon Jorge Timón cfields Cory Fields btcdrak btcdrak Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr paveljanik Pavel Janik maaku Mark Friedenbach 

Comic relief

19:47 wumpus note also that bitcoin never forks 19:48 wumpus gmaxwell: just add a disclaimer 'not fork safe' 19:48 jonasschnelli 'not fork safe'? HF or SF.... 19:48 jonasschnelli  
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-07)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
0.12 Release candidate Detailed roadmap for next projects
Short topics/notes
Gmaxwell has asked Luke-Jr to take over as BIP-editor. He'll be working on clearing up the back-log. He mailed the mailinglist for information.
All platforms seem to compile bitcoin with C++11 now. Travis still needs a C++11 compiler, which cfields will enable.
Segnet will do a backwards incompatible change soon, to change the commitment structure.
0.12 Release candidate
Bitcoin Core 0.12 is scheduled for release around February and introduces a lot of fixes and improvements.
It still needs some more info in the release notes. PR's #7151 and #7149 are mentioned to possibly still be included in 0.12 as well as a quick fix for #7098 (to be written). Morcos feels strongly that releasing 0.12 as is, is pretty bad. Due to the smartfee changes stuck transactions should be really rare, but if they happen it's worse than 0.11, as the network more easily "forgets" transactions. PR #7312 "Add RPC call abandontransaction" is proposed by Morcos to be a quick-fix to enable users to make their wallet forget about the inputs to a transaction that's not in the mempool. Better solutions should be build for 0.12.1
Take a look at PR's #7151, #7149 and #7312 Cfields will work on a fix for #7098
Detailed roadmap for next projects
Morcos makes a request for some direction on what sort of timeline projects are on, and what the order of implementation should roughly be. This so there's a concentration of effort and focus. A more clear plan could result in investing resources into the right parts.
Jonasschnelli will work on RBF features for the wallet. Cfields is planning to post a request for comments for a network stack overhaul next week. BIP 9 versionbits is moved back in priority a bit. Libconsensus refactoring needs a scheduled time to do, as well as C++11. Clang format might not be worth it, if so we need to communicate that it won't happen.
Everyone that is working on something that they plan to have finished for 0.13 should send wumpus his proposals, so he can merge it into a plan.
Participants
Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan sipa Pieter Wuille morcos Alex Morcos jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields petertodd Peter Todd MarcoFalke Marco Falke sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar jgarzik Jeff Garzik btcdrak btcdrak CodeShark Eric Lombrozo droark Douglas Roark jtimon Jorge Timón 
Comic relief
19:40 sipa there is a moral obligation to have VB or something with similar functionality available 
(refering to versionbits)
 19:41 Luke-Jr "Pieter Wuille proposes a moral requirement to rewrite Bitcoin in Visual Basic." 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-10-15)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
Mempool limiting sendheaders BIP versionbits dev/discuss list policy CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
Mempool limiting
When a transaction is relayed across the network it is held by the nodes in memory, until it gets into a block. All these transactions that sit in memory are called the memorypool or mempool for short. Like we could see during the spam-attack if there's a big back-log of transactions that couldn't make it in the blockchain this mempool can get pretty big resulting in nodes crashing.
To stop this from happening devs are trying to find a way to limit this mempool, so a mechanism to reject and/or remove transactions from the mempool. The hard part here is to make it so nodes can't be attacked by abusing this mechanism. So far the devs are going with TheBlueMatt's proposal of throwing away the cheapest txn and setting the min relay fee to it
While testing, sipa encountered transactions that took 200ms to be accepted into the mempool. As it's the first time he has benchmarked this and the pull-request shouldn't make an impact on these times it likely doesn't have anything to do with this. However, such times are bad either way. The average time in sipa's tests is 4ms. (After the meeting Morcos did some benchmarking and confirmed it was not specific to this PR, and pointed out the outliers come from CheckInputs and HaveInputs (as you might guess, having to do with checking the inputs) Question on why we should revert the minrelay (minimum fee for nodes to relay a transaction) back to 1000 (it has been set to 5000 to quick-fix the mempool issues), sipa thinks it should be floating as well or the dust limit becomes ineffective.
Review PR 6722 Limit mempool by throwing away the cheapest txn and setting min relay fee to it Morcos/sipa will do some more benchmarks and comment on the PR ( morcos' benchmark results )
sendheaders BIP
send headers BIP Copy/paste from the BIP: Since the introduction of "headers-first" downloading of blocks in 0.10, blocks will not be processed unless they are able to connect to a (valid) headers chain. Consequently, block relay generally works as follows:
  1. A node (N) announces the new tip with an "inv" message, containing the block hash
  2. A peer (P) responds to the "inv" with a "getheaders" message (to request headers up to the new tip) and a "getdata" message for the new tip itself
  3. N responds with a "headers" message (with the header for the new block along with any preceding headers unknown to P) and a "block" message containing the new block However, in the case where a new block is being announced that builds on the tip, it would be generally more efficient if the node N just announced the block header for the new block, rather than just the block hash, and saved the peer from generating and transmitting the getheaders message (and the required block locator).
Question on how to move forward. How to let the nodes know you want the blockheader instead of the blockhash. Options:
  1. Extend the version message.
  2. Have an "options" message that can send flags.
  3. Send a "sendheaders" message early when connecting so the way peers want their block announcement is immediately known.
  4. Send a "sendheaders" message at any time, changing the way peers want their block announcement from hashes to headers.
No one likes to extend the version message further. There's no strong advantage to have an "options" message over a "sendheaders" message. Having the message being sent early on might be too constraining. Possible usecase from morcos: "its entirely possible some future optimization may say, i want to send sendheaders to these peers b/c they announce a lot of new stuff to me and not these others b/c they don't". Most people like this to be enable-only, so no message to get back to receiving blockhashes. Which is how the BIP was drafted.
sdaftuar does a pull-request for the BIP to get a number assigned and proceeds with the BIP as drafted.
versionbits
BIP 9 Currently softforks have been done by the isSuperMajority mechanism, meaning when 95% of the last X blocks has a version number higher than Y the fork is deployed. A new way of doing this is currently being worked on and that uses all bits of the version number, appropriately being called versionbits. So instead of a fork happening when the version is larger than (for example) 00000000011 (3), a fork happens when (for example) the 3rd bit is up (so 00100000011). This way softforks can be deployed simultaneous and independent of each other.
copy/paste from IRC, since I don't know what this specifically means: CodeShark: so right now it's just a unit that implements the versionbits logic but does not demonstrate its usage I thought it would be better to actually integrate in a separate PR, but I can add a demonstration sipa: separate commit, same PR - i think we need something that's mergable as a whole, to be able to see whether the whole thing easily backports
Codeshark (who's implementing versionbits) had some more remarks but no one present had seemed to reviewed it, so not much use in discussing things further.
review versionbits implementation
dev/discuss list policy
The bitcoin-dev mailing list is intended for technical discussions only. There's things that don't belong there but need to be discussed anyway. Now this is done in bitcoin-dev, but the volume of this is getting too big. There's recently also an influx of really inappropriate posts, level kindergarden. For the things that don't belong on bitcoin-dev, but need to be discussed anyway there's a new list being created namely bitcoin-discuss as well as clear policies and moderation for both.
Bitcoin-discuss was created, but the admin password wasn't distributed to jgarzik who's willing to guide the moderation. Seperate moderation-proposals have been done meanwhile. People just want it to move on.
Since none of the people who proposed a moderation-scheme are present we'll let them discuss it among each other and post their decisions publicly.
CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) repurposes the nSequence field (nSequence are 4 bytes intended for sequencing time-locked transactions, but this never got used). However, there's no way use these values in a bitcoin script. CheckSequenceVerify (CSV) makes this field accessible to bitcoin scripts.
EDIT: Turns out this is not entirely correct as it is relative locktime that repurposes the nSequence field.
CLTV is pretty much done. Check to see maaku moving one of the bits to allow for other implementations to have better granularity has any objections. As long as we're using as few bits as possible the exact semantics are less important for most people. sipa points out a possible bug that influences the wallet. CSV is not on target for the end of of the month, although a lot of work and progress has been made.
Review and ACK/NACK of 6312 BIP-68: Mempool-only sequence number constraint verification Review and ACK/NACK of 6566 BIP-113: Mempool-only median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations
Participants
wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan sipa Pieter Wuille btcdrak btcdrak gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell morcos Alex Morcos maaku Mark Friedenbach CodeShark Eric Lombrozo BlueMatt Matt Corallo sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar warren Warren Togami GreenIsMyPepper Joseph Poon davec Dave Collins cfields Cory Fields jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli
Comic relief
19:21 sdaftuar it sounds like everyone is ok with the BIP as drafted then? 19:21 wumpus yes 19:21 gmaxwell I think so. 19:22 davec yes 19:22 sipa well, the only person with concerns was cfields, who doesn't seem to be here :) 19:22 gmaxwell sipa: he can raise concerns later too! 19:22 cfields dammit! 19:22 sipa cfields: too late! 19:22 gmaxwell ha 19:23 cfields did i really miss my third one of these in a row?
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

List of people who have had commit access to Bitcoin Core

I decided to attempt to figure out who has ever had commit access to Bitcoin Core's git repository and from when to when. I also posted this on Bitcointalk, but I will not link the thread due to the doxxing rule (that thread contains real names taken from the commit messages).
This list contains the git names (to avoid doxxing) of everyone who I can find evidence for ever having commit access to Bitcoin Core, the dates during which they had commit access, sources for all of this information, and reasoning for the access. Those who currently have commit access are in bold.
Footnotes:
Other Notes:
After scrolling through nearly the entire git merges history, I have found a couple of interesting things.
Satoshi did not use a Version Control System originally. The releases and source code were originally in a rar file that was uploaded to bitcoin.org. Sirius had to setup the original SVN repository on SourceForge for him. This was then later migrated to GitHub by gavinandresen. Originally patches were authored by developers and then emailed to Satoshi, Sirius, or gavinandresen who then committed the changes to the source tree with the commit message containing the attribution, but not the actual commit itself.
Another interesting fact is that the giving out of commit access has become more strict. It is now a privilege held by those given maintainer positions and those whose privilege was grandfathered in (i.e. they had it previously and kept it). Previously it was simply given out to those who contributed frequently and revoked after they stopped contributing. This appears to be no longer the case, although there are still multiple people who can commit to the repository so that there is not any reliance on one person. The maintainers are still given to frequent contributors as the maintainers are frequent contributors to the set of functionality for which they are maintainers of. They received the positions because of frequent contributions to those functionalities.
Lastly, I could not find any evidence for Satoshi ever publicly announcing that gavinandresen was to be the Lead Maintainer after him. It seems that Gavin was already a frequent contributor and already had commit access for a while before Satoshi disappeared. After Satoshi disappeared and Sirius stopped contributing as much, gavinandresen simply took over the role as lead maintainer as he was the only frequent contributor with commit access.
Edits:
Dooglus -> dooglus
jgarzik's commit access was revoked a while ago.
Bolded those who still actively contribute to the project
Clarified how maintainers got their roles
submitted by achow101 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Unlimited intends to be shared source with miners

18:15 < gmaxwell> they just released binaries to fix the latest crash, but no changes to their codebase for 6 days. 18:15 < gmaxwell> fix is binary only. 18:15 < grubles> yikes 18:15 < Magma> It worked so well last time when asshats announced attack code on Twitter as soon as it was commited to Github 18:17 < Magma> All small blockers complained that it was stupid to just commit it to Github without releasing binaries first, now they are doing that 18:17 < gmaxwell> Magma: lol no they didn't. 18:17 < gmaxwell> Magma: I'm gonna laugh my ass off when those binaries steal all your coins. 18:18 < grubles> oh hey it's Magma 18:18 < gmaxwell> Magma: and as far as tweeting about it: (1) they were being attaced a half hour before peter todd tweeted about it, and (2) it was BU's own stupidity to specifically call out the fix as a remote crasher. 18:22 < Magma> The source is available for all the mining pools that wants them. 18:23 < grubles> Magma: because users don't matter, right? 18:23 < Magma> Most bitcoin users use SPV wallets or Blockchain.info wallets 
submitted by Josephson247 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-11-19)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization Note that I crosspost this to Voat, bitcoin.com and the bitcoin-discuss mailing list every week. I can't control what's being talking about in the meeting, if certain things come up I might not be able to post here because of "guidelines".
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
transaction priority dealing with mempool eviction Sequence numbers
Short topics/notes
Opt-in replace by fee needs some extra testing, but otherwise seems ready to go. Some wallet developers are onboard and actively participating, for example GreenAddress.
transaction priority
Each transaction is assigned a priority, determined by the age, size, and number of inputs. Which currently makes some transactions free. This currently has a large amount of code, which makes it harder to maintain, and is not that optimal since you can't expect miners to include 0-fee transactions.
If we don't stop support for priority in transaction creation we also need a mempool area for priority, or those transactions will always get evicted. If we develop a better framework to support these kind of metrics we can add it back. Plan is to remove the priority transaction creation from the wallet, not the mining part.
Creation of priority transactions should be removed from the wallet.
dealing with mempool eviction
When a transaction is relayed across the network it is held by the nodes in memory, until it gets into a block. All these transactions that sit in memory are called the memorypool or mempool for short. Like we could see during the spam-attack if there's a big back-log of transactions that couldn't make it in the blockchain this mempool can get pretty big resulting in nodes crashing.
To stop this from happening devs created a mechanism to reject and/or remove transactions from the mempool.
Current problem: when a wallet transaction is rejected by the mempool, the wallet considers the resulting transaction as "conflicting" and will happily respend the inputs. sipa proposes to make the wallet only treat a transaction as conflicting if it has non-existing inputs. It should however consider it respendable at some time later on. You could add a way to manually remove transactions, or tag is as removed, or archive it. You could also do something separate that marks the transaction as respendable, as removal gives the impression the transaction can't be mined in the future. Options that are wanted: a "respend with higher fee" option and an option to forget about a transaction completely, we need a minimum viable idea for 0.12 though.
Given the tight deadline for 0.12 we detect actual conflict instead of mempool eviction and leave the coins immediately respendable.
Sequence numbers
BIP 68 repurposes some of the unused nSequence field to a relative locktime, meaning locking inputs until a certain time or blockheight has passed.
We need to wait for BIP113 to be deployed as standardness so BIP 68, 112 and 113 can go in a softfork. There's upcoming projects that already use sequence numbers. Merging BIP68 would make BIP112 easier to review and would stop the need to rebase all the time. If we feel the 68/112 are sufficiently reviewed and mature they could go in as standardness rules. The BIP text doesn't seem to reflect what's written in the code.
Check BIP68 to match the implementation
Participants
sipa Pieter Wuille gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell morcos Alex Morcos jtimon Jorge Timón wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan btcdrak btcdrak jgarzik Jeff Garzik petertodd Peter Todd Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr BlueMatt Matt Corallo jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli CodeShark Eric Lombrozo sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar gavinand1esen Gavin Andresen 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-12-10)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Short topics/notes
Personal note: My weekly posts are being read by more people than I ever anticipated and people are expecting these to come weekly. Next year mid-february I'll be on vacation for a month, so I won't be able to do the meetings from 2016/02/18 to 2016/03/10. If there's anyone who's up for the challenge to take over during a week (and share the load with others) feel free to pm me. I'm announcing well in advance, so there's more chance to find some people and to not make this a last minute thing.
Also a reminder to anyone that's running a full node to update their node to core 11.2 or 10.4, btcd 0.12, BitcoinXT D, or any other node that supports BIP65 CLTV, to accommodate for the softfork that will activate today. Not updating will mean you'll be trusting miners to produce valid blocks.
As expected a shorter meeting today as well, since a lot of developers are still traveling.
BIP 68 semantic change
BIP 68 Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signaled via sequence numbers , and current implementation. BIP 68 changes the meaning of the previously unused sequence number field to a relative locktime. When a block is created miners include a timestamp. This timestamp has to be between the median of the previous 11 blocks and the network-adjusted time +2 hours. So this timestamp can vary a decent amount from the real time. With the introduction of lock-time transactions, that are only valid after a certain time, miners are incentivised to lie about the time in order to include time-locked transactions (and their fees) that wouldn't otherwise be valid. BIP113 enables the usage of GetMedianTimePast (the median of the previous 11 blocks) from the prior block in lock-time transactions to combat this behavior. Users can compensate for this by adding 1 hour (6 blocks) to their lock times.
It would make sense to just always use MedianTimePast for BIP68, regardless of BIP113, although BIP 113 is still needed to change the semantics of nLockTime. Implementation by Morcos. BIP 68 would nullify the CreateNewBlock performance increase recently made in #6898, discussion about a fix are made in #7176, discussion and commits for a fix of the new approach (always using MedianTimePast) are on #7187 There's some possible issues with the GUI display of currently locked transactions. If a block gets orphaned and a confirmed input becomes unconfirmed it might make a previous acceptable transaction be evicted by the mempool and you might want to inform the user it is locked (as opposed to not visible). Morcos proposes to leave this issue and clean it up after the softfork, as it doesn't seem important enough to be backported. UI/Wallet changes are usually separated from the softfork changes anyway. In this line of thought morcos poses the question of whether there's been some thought and/or objections to loosen the current behaviour of the mempool to only contain transactions valid for the next block. btcdrak mentions ajtowns wrote some python demos for BIP68+CSV which will be useful for testers.
Take a look at the BIP68 approach of #7184 Take a look at the CreateNewBlock performance fix for the above aproach at #7187
Participants
morcos Alex Morcos btcdrak btcdrak wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan BlueMatt Matt Corallo gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar gavinandresen Gavin Andresen Lightsword Lightsword?? 
submitted by G1lius to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-11-05)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization Note that I crosspost this to Voat, bitcoin.com and the bitcoin-discuss mailing list every week. I can't control what's being talking about in the meeting, if certain things come up I might not be able to post here because of "guidelines".
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
Sigcache performance Performance goals for 0.12 transaction priority sigops flooding attack chain limits
Short topics/notes
Note: cfields, mcelrath and BlueMatt (and maybe more) missed the meeting because of daylight saving time.
Closing date for proposals for the scaling bitcoin workshop is the 9th.
Check to see if there are any other commits for the 0.11.2 RC. As soon as 6948 and 6825 are merged it seems good to go. We need to move fairly quick as there are already miners voting for CLTV (F2Pool). Also testnet is CLTV locked already and is constantly forking. 0.11.2 RC1 has been released as of today: https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.11.2/test/
Most of the mempool-limiting analysis assumed child-pays-for-parent, however that isn't ready for 0.12 yet, so we should think about possible abuses in context of the existing mining algorithm.
Because of time-constrains opt-in replace-by-fee has been deferred to next weeks meeting, but most people seem to want it in 0.12. sdaftuar makes a note that we need to make clear to users what they need to do if they don't want to accept opt-in transactions.
Sigcache performance
The signature cache, which is in place to increase performance (by not having to check the signature multiple times), and to mitigate some attacks currently has a default limit of 50 000 signatures. Sipa has a pull-request which proposes to: Change the limit from number of entries to megabytes Change the default to 40MB, which corresponds to 500 000 signatures Store salted hashes instead of full entries Remove entries that have been validated in a block
Sipa did benchmarks for various signature cache sizes on hitrate in blocks (how many of the cached signatures are in the block). The maximum sigcache size was 68MB, resulting in a 3% miss-rate. Some blocks though have extremely high miss rates (60%) while others have none. Likely caused by miners running different policies. Gmaxwell proposed to always run script verification for mempool transactions, even if these transactions get rejected into the mempool by the clients policy. The result of that is that even a 300MB sigcache size only gets down to 15% misses. So there's too much crap being relayed to keep any reasonable sized cache. Gmaxwell points out downsides to not checking any rejected transactions, namely: there are some DOS attacks possible, and you increase your misrate if you set a policy which is more restrictive than the typical network, which might result in a race to the bottom.
Sipa continues his work and seeks out other strategies
Performance goals for 0.12
Bitcoin-core 0.12 is scheduled for release December 1st.
Everybody likes to include secp256k1 ASAP, as it has a very large performance increase. Some people would like to include the sigcache pull-request, BIP30, modifyNewCoins and a createNewBlock rewrite if it's ready. Wumpus advises against merging last-minute performance improvements for 0.12.
Mentioned pull-requests should be reviewed, prioritizing CreateNewBlock
transaction priority
Each transaction is assigned a priority, determined by the age, size, and number of inputs. Which makes some transactions free.
Sipa thinks we should get rid of the current priority completely and replace it with a function that modifies fee or size of a transaction. There's a pull-request available that optimizes the current transaction priority, thereby avoiding the political debate that goes with changing the definition of transaction priority. Luke-jr thinks the old policy should remain possible.
Check to see if PR #6357 is safe and efficient enough.
sigops flooding attack
The number of ECDSA signature-checking operations or sigops is currently limited to 20 000 per block. This in order to prevent miners creating blocks that take ages to verify as those operations are time-consuming. You could however construct transactions that have a very high sigops count and since most miners don't take into account the sigops count they end up with very small blocks because the sigop limit is reached. This attack is described here.
Suggestion to take the number of sigops relative to the maximum blocksize into account with the total size. Meaning a 10k sigops transaction would currently be viewed as 500kB in size (for that single transaction, not towards the block). That suggestion would be easy to change in the mining code, but more invasive to try and plug that into everything that looks at feerate. This would also open up attacks on the mempool if these transactions are not evicted by mempool limiting. Luke-jr has a bytes-per-sigop limit, that filters out these attack transactions.
More analysis should be done, people seem fine with the general direction of fixing it.
chain limits
Chain in this context means connected transactions. When you send a transaction that depends on another transaction that has yet to be confirmed we talk about a chain of transactions. Miners ideally take the whole chain into account instead of just every single transaction (although that's not widely implemented afaik). So while a single transaction might not have a sufficient fee, a depending transaction could have a high enough fee to make it worthwhile to mine both. This is commonly known as child-pays-for-parent. Since you can make these chains very big it's possible to clog up the mempool this way. With the recent malleability attacks, anyone who made transactions going multiple layers deep would've already encountered huge problems doing this (beautifully explained in let's talk bitcoin #258 from 13:50 onwards) Proposal and github link.
sdaftuar's analysis shows that 40% of blocks contain a chain that exceeds the proposed limits. Even a small bump doesn't make the problem go away. Possible sources of these chains: a service paying the fees on other transactions (child-pays-for-parent), an iOS wallet that gladly spends unconfirmed change. A business confirms they use child-pays-for-parent when they receive bitcoins from an unspent chain. It is possible that these long chains are delivered to miners directly, in which case they wouldn't be affected by the proposed relay limits (and by malleability). Since this is a problem that needs to be addressed, people seem fine with merging it anyway, communicating in advance to let businesses think about how this affects them.
Merge "Policy: Lower default limits for tx chains" Morcos will mail the developer mailing list after it's merged.
Participants
morcos Alex Morcos gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan sipa Pieter Wuille jgarzik Jeff Garzik Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar btcdrak btcdrak jouke ??Jouke Hofman?? jtimon Jorge Timón jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli 
Comic relief
20:01 wumpus #meetingend 20:01 wumpus #meetingstop 20:01 gmaxwell Thanks all. 20:01 btcdrak #exitmeeting 20:01 gmaxwell #nomeetingnonono 20:01 btcdrak #meedingexit 20:01 wumpus #endmeeting 20:01 lightningbot Meeting ended Thu Nov 5 20:01:29 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . 20:01 btcdrak #rekt 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-21)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain

Logs

Main topics

Short topics

0.11 backport release for chainstate obfuscation

background

As some windows users might have experienced in the past, anti-virus software regularly detects values in the bitcoin database files which are false-positives. Thereby deleting those files and corrupting the database. To prevent this from happening developers discussed a way to obfuscate the database files and implemented it last year. While downgrading after upgrading is possible, if you start from a new 0.12 installation or you've done a -reindex on 0.12 it's impossible to downgrade to 0.11 (without starting from scratch).

meeting comments

The proposed pull-request detects the obfuscation in 0.11 so it throws a relevant error message. To avoid this in the future it would be good to have versionnumbers for the chainstate.

meeting conclusion

Release a 0.11 backport release right after the 0.12 final release to avoid confusion.

C++11 update

background

C++11 is an update of the C++ language. It offers new functionalities, an extended standard library, etc. Zerocash had to be written with some c++11 libraries and some IBLT simulation code was written in c++11, which they want to recycle for the eventual core commit.

meeting comments

All changes needed for C++11 have gone in and it's ready to switch. Cfields talked to the travis team and all the features needed (trusty, caching) will be ready by the end of the month, so he proposes to wait until then to flip the switch. Wangchung from f2pool indicated he would not run code that required a C++11 compiler. No one knows what his exact concerns are. Wumpus notes the gitian-built executables don't need any special OS support after the C++11 switch.

meeting conclusion

Wait for Travis update to switch to C++11. Talk to wangchung about his concerns.

EOL Policy / release cycles

background

In general bugfixes, translations and softforks are maintained for 2 major releases. btcdrak proposed to makes this official into a software life-cycle document for bitcoin core in order to inform users what to expect and developers what to code for. Pull request for this document. Given the huge 0.12 changelog jonasschnelli asks whether shorter release cycles might be a good idea. Currently there's a +/- 6 month release cycle.

meeting comments

Gmaxwell notes he doesn't know how useful the backports are given there's no feedback about them, but thinks the current policy is not bad. "I am observing the backports appear to be a waste of time. From a matter of principle, I think they are important, but the industry doesn't appear to agree." If no one is using the backports, it might not see sufficient testing. People generally agree with the 2 major releases approach.
The cyclelength also contributes to frustration and pressure to get features in, as it won't see the light of day for 6 months if it doesn't make the new release. For users it's not really better to have more frequent major releases, as upgrading may not always be a trivial process. There's also a lot of work going into releases. If the GUI and wallet where detached there could be more frequent releases for that part.

meeting conclusion

Policy will be: final release of 0.X means end-of-life of 0.(X-2), which means a 1 year support on the 6 month cycle.

Participants

wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields btcdrak btcdrak sipa Pieter Wuille jtimon Jorge Timón maaku Mark Friedenbach kangx_ ??? Kang Zhang ??? sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman CodeShark Eric Lombrozo bsm117532 Bob McElrath dkog ?dkog? jeremias ??? Jeremias Kangas ??? 

Comic relief

jonasschnelli maaku: refactoring? We have a main.cpp. We don't need refactoring. :) gmaxwell jonasschnelli: can we move everything back into main.cpp? I'd save a lot of time grepping. :P wumpus #endmeeting lightningbot` Meeting ended Thu Jan 21 19:55:48 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) btcdrak wumpus: hole in one maaku Did it right this time! gmaxwell Hurray! 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lloyd Maxwell - Bitcoin Chart Live Bitcoin Core Wallet Video # 1 Maxwell Wallet Exchange Withdraw and Deposit Coinbase Speaker Series: Greg Maxwell of Blockstream Trustee Wallet - Bitcoin wallet.

A new, more user-friendly and simple set of pages designed to help people find an ideal bitcoin wallet is now available. It includes a step-by-step wizard to help people become more familiar with wallets, ratings to compare how they stack up alongside other wallets, as well as explanations of features they provide in order to help people make their own informed decisions. all blockchain and pricing data on bitcoinwallet.com is provided “as-is” and is to be used for entertainment purposes only, and should not be used or relied on in any way to influence or direct trading or investment decisions or funds availaibility or funds value. neither bitcoinwallet.com, nor its employees, contractors, owners, operators or data sources verify or are responsible for the ... June 30, 2014 gmaxwell commented on issue brainwallet/brainwallet.github.io#51 Oh fun, so on MSIE the site has been signing things using math.Random() to generate the ... Bitcoin-Qt is the so – called" official " client of the network, which is developed and promoted by Bitcoin Foundation, a non-profit organization uniting core developers and responsible for the community's contacts with corporations and governments.Bitcoin Foundation branches are opened in several dozens of countries around the world. The project quickly raised over $50,000 from more than 1,000 donors around the world. In November, Taaki, Martin, Todd, Wilson and others (including Bitcoin Magazine’s founder and then-editor-in-chief Mihai Alisie) met in a cultural center in Milan to discuss the design of the new wallet.Joined by a group of programmers working under pseudonyms like tilthz, sem, veox and d3, the project got ...

[index] [35736] [49617] [18152] [29221] [29141] [47251] [19737] [38144] [33838] [38675]

Lloyd Maxwell - Bitcoin Chart Live

Greg Maxwell: A Deep Dive Into Bitcoin Core 0.15 - Duration: 1 ... #127 BTC Full Node, Wallet Security & Bitcoin Core + Bitcoin Knots - Duration: 32:07. Minting Coins 2,377 views. 32:07 . How to ... Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. ... Choose your Bitcoin Wallet - An in-depth review of BitcoinQT, Electrum and ... This channel provides passionate users to exchange opinions on Technical Analysis with a community of like-minded individuals. No one in this channel is certified to give financial advice, as such ... Euro Wallet on Bitpanda //Sell Bitcoin for Euro, buy Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum with Euro 賣比特幣歐元 - Duration: 2:42. Bitcoin in Europe 3,403 views 2:42 Greg Maxwell, co-founder and CTO of Blockstream, visited the Coinbase office on April 28th, 2017 to talk about confidential transactions. To own a piece of the future visit Coinbase: https://www ...

#