Bitcoin Mining Pool | Bitcoin.com

AMA Bitcoin Mining / Stratum V2 — We are Braiins, the company behind Slush Pool and Stratum V2. We’re joined by Matt Corallo and Peter Todd. Ask us anything!

Hi Bitcoin! We are Jan Capek (u/janbraiins) and Pavel Moravec (u/p-m-o), co-founders of Braiins (the company behind Slush Pool & Braiins OS). We recently published the specification for Stratum V2 — a new mining protocol that improves the decentralization, security, and efficiency of Bitcoin mining.
We know the biggest issues miners and mining pools face based on our years of experience operating Slush Pool, and this protocol addresses those problems. You can find the documentation at stratumprotocol.org.
Matt Corallo (u/TheBlueMatt) will also participate in the AMA. He joined us in Prague last September to hash out the details of the spec and his idea of allowing miners to select their own work in BetterHash is also implemented in Stratum V2. Peter Todd (u/petertodd) also joined the V2 team with his security expertise and will participate in this AMA.
Ask us anything! We’ll try to begin answering questions on Thursday around 4pm CET (10am EST).
P.S. The V2 technical specification is currently available to the public for comments and general feedback.
submitted by SlushPool to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[QUESTION] Is there a map of places that accept Monero like coinmap.org?

Coinmap.org is for bitcoin only and understandably so, as it was created by the people behind Slush Pool and Trezor, so that had me wondering if there is a similar site that maps out places where Monero is accepted as payment.
I know coinatmradar.com supports Monero, but that only addresses where to buy Monero and not where to spend it.
It does not have to be a site dedicated to Monero only. It might even be better if one site allows to map out and filter all available cryptocurrencies just like coinatmradar.com does.
submitted by CryptoCommissar to Monero [link] [comments]

AsicBoost and the strange case of CVE-2017-9230

About CVEs

In the public interest of tracking and remedying cybersecurity vulnerabilities quickly, a public database was created in 2000: the CVE List [1].
CVE stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. Its database records, known as CVEs, track and record publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Each recorded vulnerability has a unique ID and lifecycle where it follows certain states.

The AsicBoost controversy

In April 2017, Greg Maxwell published an email [2] on the bitcoin-dev mailing list which described AsicBoost - a patented optimization to the algorithm used in Bitcoin mining - as an attack on the Bitcoin protocol.
There was much contention [3] about whether AsicBoost constituted some kind of harmful exploit, or whether it was merely a technological innovation which enabled more efficient mining hardware (ASICs).
There were allegations, widely reported in media, that the patent served the interest of Bitmain [4]. The purported benefits of exploiting this patent as alleged by Core developers were contemporaneously disputed by other miners [5].

CVE-2017-9230 raised against AsicBoost

On 18 May 2017, Cameron Garnham posted to the bitcoin-dev list [6], urging for getting a CVE assigned to the perceived vulnerability.
On 24 May 2017, this CVE was created as CVE-2017-9230 [7]. It was simultaneously published under Bugtraq ID 'BID 98657' at [8].
The justification in the CVE stated that the AsicBoost method
'violates the security assumptions of (1) the choice of input, outside of the dedicated nonce area, fed into the Proof-of-Work function should not change its difficulty to evaluate and (2) every Proof-of-Work function execution should be independent.'
It seemed a plausible enough reasoning for the CVE to be assigned. It was entered in the list of Bitcoin-related CVE's at [9]. Detailed information on this particular CVE is still missing/incomplete on the wiki page, a year after the CVE was raised.

What happened since the CVE was raised

If you've followed along, you've learned that the CVE was raised to counter the exploitation of the AsicBoost method by miners.
Since then, however, a Core developer, BtcDrak, has been involved in the founding of a mining company, Halong Mining. Several online sources state his (part?) ownership of this company.
BtcDrak has put forward a proposal [10] which would enable the use of AsicBoost within the Bitcoin Core software (the dominant client software on the BTC network).
This proposal appears to directly contradict the CVE claims of how AsicBoost violates "security assumptions" of Bitcoin, and indeed does not address how it mitigates them, nor is CVE-2017-9230 referenced in any of its related documentation.
While the proposal's specification [11] and implementation [12] have not yet been formally accepted, the situation is that Halong has shipped mining equipment which is now actively employing AsicBoost [13,14] on the Bitcoin (BTC) network. There is even a website showing the blocks where AsicBoost was used [15].

Conflict of interest

There a clear conflict of interest in the actions of the Core developer BtcDrak. His actions as a Core developer appear to be furthering his company's interests and competitive advantage in the mining industry by exploiting a vulnerability of which he must have been keenly aware, having participated on the same bitcoin-dev mailing list where it was discussed.
The CVE was vociferously used to paint Bitmain as culpable for delaying Segwit (Bitmain was accused of using AsicBoost and blocking Segwit activation for their own profit motive - claims that Bitmain has publicly denied strongly and which were never substantiated).
One might have expected a similar outcry against Halong's proven and announced use of AsicBoost, but the parties that had previously condemned Bitmain remained mostly silent. Only an anonymous non-developer, Cobra-Bitcoin, co-owner of the bitcoin.org domain, spoke out on the Github pull request in [11], and Core developer Luke-jr spoke out against the use of the proposal on the Bitcoin network while consensus had not been reached on it [16].
Subsequent discussion on the bitcoin-dev list on this topic since March has been minimal and only concerned with technicalities of stratum protocol changes.

The bigger elephant in the room

It seems logical that either AsicBoost constitutes an exploitable weakness, and thus merits a CVE and measures taken to prevent its use on the Bitcoin network entirely.
Or it is not a problem and the CVE should be invalidated.
The Bitcoin Core project should use its consensus processes to arrive at a coherent decision.

Other problems raised by the use of overt AsicBoost

The Halong implementation uses version rolling of the nversion bits of the header. It reserves a subset of those bits for overt AsicBoost.
These bits are no longer available to BIP9, but there was no update of BIP9 proposed to address this impact.
This is a question of sensible procedures being followed (or not). The author did not find any review comment mentioning the lack of BIP9 specification update, which suggest a lack of thorough review on a proposal which dates back several months.
A minor issue is that the Core implementation warns when a certain proportion of unrecognized version bits are detected. This behavior can be triggered by the AsicBoost method used on the network.
[1] https://cve.mitre.org/about/history.html
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
[3] https://news.bitcoin.com/developers-clash-exploit-secret-core-organization/
[4] https://archive.is/q2Q4t
[5] https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html
[7] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230
[8] https://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98657
[9] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
[10] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015801.html
[11] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/661
[12] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12633
[13] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/halong-mining-first-bitcoin-mining-hardware-producer-implement-overt-asicboost/
[14] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/slush-pool-now-compatible-asicboost-miners/
[15] https://asicboost.dance
[16] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015802.html
EDITS:
  1. make dates unambiguous, make it clear that [5] disputes the benefits alleged by Core developers
submitted by btcfork to btc [link] [comments]

A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's takeover and problems.

REPOSTED THIS FOR MORE VISIBILITY & FEW EDITS
On November 22 I posted this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7eszwk/links_related_to_blockstreams_takeover_of_bitcoin
On December this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7mg4tm/updated_dec_2017_a_collection_of_evidence/
On January this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7qfw2b/a_collection_of_evidence_regarding_bitcoins/
This is March update
I will be removing duplicates and off-topic content. #34 and #74 has been changed. Please give me feed back, and also recommend a new title if you guys have any idea :)
The Bitcoin Whitepaper
PDF
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 [Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"](https:// np.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/)
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 Segwit does not block ASICBoost. SlushPool supports it.
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Why Bitcoin Cash
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
87 A video that Blockstream does not want you to see
88 A story of how someone was brainwashed
89 Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin
90 What /btc is up against
91 OpenBazaar dev explains why they won't implement Lightning Network
92 An extended history of Bitcoin Cash
93 Should I trust Bitcoin Cash ? Roger Ver seems shady
94 /btc gets brigaded and blackmailed
95 Bitcoin Core talking points translated honestly
96 Possible attacks on Bitcoin. One of them did happen
97 How many people are aware that Bitcoin Cash is a manipulation made by Roger Ver, CNBC and Coinbase?
98 Why Rick Falkvinge chose Bitcoin Cash
More from Rick
99 Can Bitcoin Cash scale on-chain?
100 Are bigger blocks better for bigger miners?
101 Jonald Fyookball corrects the misinformation
102 A developer, Luke-Jr, in the Core team is crazy
Thanks to singularity87, 103 to 106. There are more in his link
103 Using the HK agreement to stall miners from adopting bitcoin classic
104 Luke-Jr would be fine with having Jihan Wu executed
105 Theymos threatens to write to the SEC
106 Matt Corallo writes to the SEC to make Core’s BTC the “official” btc.
107 Re: BCH as an altcoin
108 The difference between BTC and BCH
109 Someone asks why Bitcoin Core refuses to increase the blocksize
110 Bitcoin back then : 1, 2, 3, 4
111 More resources
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

GHash.IO & double spending

Some of this data is from bitcointalk, I'll attribute the authors as I go

TL;DR:

Put on your thinking cap:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate

"getblocktemplate moves block creation to the miner, while giving pools a way to set down the rules for participation. While pools can do just as much as they could before by expressing it in these rules, miners can not be kept in the dark and are enabled to freely choose what they participate in mining. This improves the security of the Bitcoin network by making blocks decentralized again."
A risk that is difficult to assess is whether the large mining pools validate coinbase tx content included by miners in their pool.
(To test, you "just" need to be the member of a pool who successfully solves a block; and also write a custom miner to include a specific coinbase tx that the pool did not ask you to provide. (Credit to bee7 here for this idea).
It's possible that the GHash.IO operators control (or are colluding with) a significant portion of the mining capacity of Elgius and Slush (I picked those two pools because of their abysmal orphan (luck) rate); This hypothesis is supported by the data in this post.
There are, of course, other very reasonable explanations for the "luck variance" observation:
...but there is also additional circumstantial evidence that GHash.IO have bad actors:

Credit to mmitech for this next bit of research:

In September I witnessed a lot of double-spending against BetCoin Dice. It happened between 25th and 27th Sept.
The mechanism was simple: send betcoin a tx with 0 fee, then wait for a result tx, if your bet is a win, then confirm your tx, otherwise double-spend it.
  1. Here I'll give you a bunch of transactions which you can examine. Note this is a chain of transactions, so just click on outputs to see. https://blockchain.info/tx/4d731074447f02609c3110a187f9c6976f2bf255288ec5666ee270f09679619d https://blockchain.info/tx/e0b44f68441ea0bad0f7694f735f496ce05238862534c6fea737b8903921185a The double-spending of losing bets was performed by someone mining to https://blockchain.info/address/1MA7CKbWMyKdPkmsbnwmfeLh1hYy5A3gy8 , you can check it yourself.
  2. I tracked coins down to the origin https://blockchain.info/tx/154ecb1eb72c933bc0707fa70deceb688361554ab81b901673d308aa84d9cfe9 The most interesting address here is 12PcHjajFJmDqz28yv4PEvBF4aJiFMuTFD It's been involved in similar actions, look at this chain of win-only tx's https://blockchain.info/tx/0c1a08d035862b01d075e8044b1e9ce52a8ad951b57d876a2a9a0e3502c41eb0 And the most interesting fact is that these zero-fee tx's inbetween winning ones were mined by ghash.io exclusively. Possibly this was a test attack.
  3. Going further, I found the address the earnings from attack were sent to: 12e8322A9YqPbGBzFU6zXqn7KuBEHrpAAv https://blockchain.info/tx/292e7354fbca1847f0cbdc87a7d62bc37e58e8b6fa773ef4846b959f28c42910 And then part of these funds (125 BTC) was sent to ghash.io's mining address: https://blockchain.info/tx/48168cf655d0ac0c7c2733288ca72e69ecd515a9a0ab2821087eb33deb7c6962
  4. Furthermore, I checked the funds mined to 1MA7CKbWMyKdPkmsbnwmfeLh1hYy5A3gy8 In these 2 succeeding tx's they were moved to 199kVcHrLdouz9k9iW3jh1kpL7j9nLg7pn https://blockchain.info/tx/e567ad6232de5285e0dc211d3f1c489b1e00e509118ba98a4825529d0a9197d9 https://blockchain.info/tx/faa7bc8b99376efa774045e79b42771fe668341b00290a61cd416992571c590d
This address is interesting, because it contains 6000 BTC and ~30% of funds come from ghash.io mining address. https://blockchain.info/taint/199kVcHrLdouz9k9iW3jh1kpL7j9nLg7pn
  1. And the last thing to spot: GHash.io, being about 25% of network back then, didn't find a single block to its address between 25th and 27th of september! https://blockchain.info/address/1CjPR7Z5ZSyWk6WtXvSFgkptmpoi4UM9BC?offset=1350&filter=2
Ok smarties: Any other thoughts/theories/criticisms to these hypotheses? Post below if you're considering changing pools now.
2014-Jun-03 11:18PM PDT edit: Fixed formatting issues
2014-Jun-03 11:25PM PDT edit: Clarified negative effect in TL;DR
2014-Jun-04 01:40PM PDT edit: Clarified point about pool hopping
submitted by bullshbit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

AsicBoost and the strange case of CVE-2017-9230

About CVEs

In the public interest of tracking and remedying cybersecurity vulnerabilities quickly, a public database was created in 2000: the CVE List [1].
CVE stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. Its database records, known as CVEs, track and record publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Each recorded vulnerability has a unique ID and lifecycle where it follows certain states.

The AsicBoost controversy

In April 2017, Greg Maxwell published an email [2] on the bitcoin-dev mailing list which described AsicBoost - a patented optimization to the algorithm used in Bitcoin mining - as an attack on the Bitcoin protocol.
There was much contention [3] about whether AsicBoost constituted some kind of harmful exploit, or whether it was merely a technological innovation which enabled more efficient mining hardware (ASICs).
There were allegations, widely reported in media, that the patent served the interest of Bitmain [4]. The purported benefits of exploiting this patent as alleged by Core developers were contemporaneously disputed by other miners [5].

CVE-2017-9230 raised against AsicBoost

On 18 May 2017, Cameron Garnham posted to the bitcoin-dev list [6], urging for getting a CVE assigned to the perceived vulnerability.
On 24 May 2017, this CVE was created as CVE-2017-9230 [7]. It was simultaneously published under Bugtraq ID 'BID 98657' at [8].
The justification in the CVE stated that the AsicBoost method
'violates the security assumptions of (1) the choice of input, outside of the dedicated nonce area, fed into the Proof-of-Work function should not change its difficulty to evaluate and (2) every Proof-of-Work function execution should be independent.'
It seemed a plausible enough reasoning for the CVE to be assigned. It was entered in the list of Bitcoin-related CVE's at [9]. Detailed information on this particular CVE is still missing/incomplete on the wiki page, a year after the CVE was raised.

What happened since the CVE was raised

If you've followed along, you've learned that the CVE was raised to counter the exploitation of the AsicBoost method by miners.
Since then, however, a Core developer, BtcDrak, has been involved in the founding of a mining company, Halong Mining. Several online sources state his (part?) ownership of this company.
BtcDrak has put forward a proposal [10] which would enable the use of AsicBoost within the Bitcoin Core software (the dominant client software on the BTC network).
This proposal appears to directly contradict the CVE claims of how AsicBoost violates "security assumptions" of Bitcoin, and indeed does not address how it mitigates them, nor is CVE-2017-9230 referenced in any of its related documentation.
While the proposal's specification [11] and implementation [12] have not yet been formally accepted, the situation is that Halong has shipped mining equipment which is now actively employing AsicBoost [13,14] on the Bitcoin (BTC) network. There is even a website showing the blocks where AsicBoost was used [15].

Conflict of interest

There a clear conflict of interest in the actions of the Core developer BtcDrak. His actions as a Core developer appear to be furthering his company's interests and competitive advantage in the mining industry by exploiting a vulnerability of which he must have been keenly aware, having participated on the same bitcoin-dev mailing list where it was discussed.
The CVE was vociferously used to paint Bitmain as culpable for delaying Segwit (Bitmain was accused of using AsicBoost and blocking Segwit activation for their own profit motive - claims that Bitmain has publicly denied strongly and which were never substantiated).
One might have expected a similar outcry against Halong's proven and announced use of AsicBoost, but the parties that had previously condemned Bitmain remained mostly silent. Only an anonymous non-developer, Cobra-Bitcoin, co-owner of the bitcoin.org domain, spoke out on the Github pull request in [11], and Core developer Luke-jr spoke out against the use of the proposal on the Bitcoin network while consensus had not been reached on it [16].
Subsequent discussion on the bitcoin-dev list on this topic since March has been minimal and only concerned with technicalities of stratum protocol changes.

The bigger elephant in the room

It seems logical that either AsicBoost constitutes an exploitable weakness, and thus merits a CVE and measures taken to prevent its use on the Bitcoin network entirely.
Or it is not a problem and the CVE should be invalidated.
The Bitcoin Core project should use its consensus processes to arrive at a coherent decision.

Other problems raised by the use of overt AsicBoost

The Halong implementation uses version rolling of the nversion bits of the header. It reserves a subset of those bits for overt AsicBoost.
These bits are no longer available to BIP9, but there was no update of BIP9 proposed to address this impact.
This is a question of sensible procedures being followed (or not). The author did not find any review comment mentioning the lack of BIP9 specification update, which suggest a lack of thorough review on a proposal which dates back several months.
A minor issue is that the Core implementation warns when a certain proportion of unrecognized version bits are detected. This behavior can be triggered by the AsicBoost method used on the network.
[1] https://cve.mitre.org/about/history.html
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
[3] https://news.bitcoin.com/developers-clash-exploit-secret-core-organization/
[4] https://archive.is/q2Q4t
[5] https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html
[7] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230
[8] https://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98657
[9] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures
[10] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015801.html
[11] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/661
[12] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12633
[13] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/halong-mining-first-bitcoin-mining-hardware-producer-implement-overt-asicboost/
[14] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/slush-pool-now-compatible-asicboost-miners/
[15] https://asicboost.dance
[16] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015802.html
EDITS:
  1. make dates unambiguous, make it clear that [5] disputes the benefits alleged by Core developers
submitted by zcc0nonA to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System | t. khan | Feb 02 2017

t. khan on Feb 02 2017:
Please comment on this work-in-progress BIP.
Thanks,
BIP: ?
Layer: Process
Title: Community Consensus Voting System
Author: t.khan
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI: TBD
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-02-02
License: BSD-2
Voting Address: 3CoFA3JiK5wxe9ze2HoDGDTmZvkE5Uuwh8 (just an example, don’t
send to this!)
Abstract
Community Consensus Voting System (CCVS) will allow developers to measure
support for BIPs prior to implementation.
Motivation
We currently have no way of measuring consensus for potential changes to
the Bitcoin protocol. This is especially problematic for controversial
changes such as the max block size limit. As a result, we have many
proposed solutions but no clear direction.
Also, due to our lack of ability to measure consensus, there is a general
feeling among many in the community that developers aren’t listening to
their concerns. This is a valid complaint, as it’s not possible to listen
to thousands of voices all shouting different things in a crowded
room—basically the situation in the Bitcoin community today.
The CCVS will allow the general public, miners, companies using Bitcoin,
and developers to vote for their preferred BIP in a way that’s public and
relatively difficult (expensive) to manipulate.
Specification
Each competing BIP will be assigned a unique bitcoin address which is added
to each header. Anyone who wanted to vote would cast their ballot by
sending a small amount (0.0001 btc) to their preferred BIP's address. Each
transaction counts as 1 vote.
Confirmed Vote Multiplier:
Mining Pools, companies using Bitcoin, and Core maintainers/contributors
are allowed one confirmed vote each. A confirmed vote is worth 10,000x a
regular vote.
For example:
Slush Pool casts a vote for their preferred BIP and then states publicly
(on their blog) their vote and the transaction ID and emails the URL to the
admin of this system. In the final tally, this vote will count as 10,000
votes.
Coinbase, Antpool, BitPay, BitFury, etc., all do the same.
Confirmed votes would be added to a new section in each respective BIP as a
public record.
Voting would run for a pre-defined period, ending when a particular block
number is mined.
Rationale
Confirmed Vote Multiplier - The purpose of this is twofold; it gives a
larger voice to organizations and the people who will have to do the work
to implement whatever BIP the community prefers, and it will negate the
effect of anyone trying to skew the results by voting repeatedly.
Definitions
Miner: any individual or organization that has mined at least one valid
block in the last 2016 blocks.
Company using Bitcoin: any organization using Bitcoin for financial, asset
or other purposes, with either under development and released solutions.
Developer: any individual who has or had commit access, and any individual
who has authored a BIP
Unresolved Issues
Node voting: It would be desirable for any full node running an up-to-date
blockchain to also be able to vote with a multiplier (e.g. 100x). But as
this would require code changes, it is outside the scope of this BIP.
Copyright
This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170202/b354d474/attachment.html
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013525.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

A bunch of resources here about Bitcoin's problems, development and content related to Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.

This is a post involving Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash including /btc and /Bitcoin and anything related to it.
The Bitcoin Whitepaper
PDF
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 [Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"](https:// np.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/)
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 Segwit does not block ASICBoost. SlushPool supports it.
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Why Bitcoin Cash
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
87 A video that Blockstream does not want you to see
88 A story of how someone was brainwashed
89 Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin
90 What /btc is up against
91 OpenBazaar dev explains why they won't implement Lightning Network
92 An extended history of Bitcoin Cash
93 Should I trust Bitcoin Cash ? Roger Ver seems shady
94 /btc gets brigaded and blackmailed
95 Bitcoin Core talking points translated honestly
96 Possible attacks on Bitcoin. One of them did happen
97 How many people are aware that Bitcoin Cash is a manipulation made by Roger Ver, CNBC and Coinbase?
98 Why Rick Falkvinge chose Bitcoin Cash
More from Rick
99 Can Bitcoin Cash scale on-chain?
100 Are bigger blocks better for bigger miners?
101 Jonald Fyookball corrects the misinformation
102 A developer, Luke-Jr, in the Core team is crazy
Thanks to singularity87, 103 to 106. There are more in his link
103 Using the HK agreement to stall miners from adopting bitcoin classic
104 Luke-Jr would be fine with having Jihan Wu executed
105 Theymos threatens to write to the SEC
106 Matt Corallo writes to the SEC to make Core’s BTC the “official” btc.
107 Re: BCH as an altcoin
108 The difference between BTC and BCH
109 Someone asks why Bitcoin Core refuses to increase the blocksize
110 Bitcoin back then : 1, 2, 3, 4
Always remember. You can choose not to support BTC without supporting BCH. This post is intended to show the people the truth. If you already know and you don't care, then you might as well choose not to comment.
BCH has been constantly under attack by FUD and misinformation from many people in this subreddit including /Bitcoin. Everything is now debunked.
For those that are lazy to go through all of the links, just read #1 and go to https://derekmagill.com/bitcoin for shorter content.
submitted by thepaip to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2016-11-05 to 2016-12-04 23:06 PDT

Period: 29.76 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 26468
Rate (per day) 33.61 875.03
Unique Redditors 395 1784
Combined Score 46892 99911

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 2360 points, 29 submissions: ydtm
    1. u/jessquit to u/nullc "You're so fucking shameless, devoting your career to crippling one of the most disruptive inventions since the Internet to please your investment team. Watching you go down in flames will be one of the great moments in computer science. Your legacy will be a monument of shame" (214 points, 40 comments)
    2. Suggestion for new terminology. Instead of saying "small blocks" vs "big blocks", we could say: "centrally planned blocksize" vs "market-based blocksize". This will make it clear that some solutions are based on markets and economics, and other solutions are based on central planning. (195 points, 64 comments)
    3. Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both. (180 points, 35 comments)
    4. Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM. (153 points, 42 comments)
    5. Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them? (149 points, 66 comments)
    6. "Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt (124 points, 80 comments)
    7. Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream. (119 points, 182 comments)
    8. u/Luke-Jr: "The best available here is currently 5Mb down + 512k up DSL." // u/TruthReasonOrLies: "You seem to want to hold back the network development and growth to support those who are the least likely to run full nodes or mining." (114 points, 45 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime (90 points, 41 comments)
    10. Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life. (88 points, 26 comments)
  2. 2261 points, 29 submissions: blockologist
    1. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted (371 points, 69 comments)
    2. Gavin Andersen: Eitheor : ignore! (205 points, 41 comments)
    3. Coinbase - Protecting Customer Privacy: "we will oppose the government’s petition in court" (201 points, 28 comments)
    4. LOL u/peoplma predicted the r\Bitcoin front page perfectly nearly a year ago (178 points, 22 comments)
    5. David Jerry on Twitter: Want real evidence of echo chamber censorship on Bitcoin? @gavinandresen posted identical opposite tweets btc has both, bitcoin only 1 (174 points, 45 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Scaling Solution Segwit a “Bait and Switch”, says Roger Ver (120 points, 110 comments)
    7. Holy cow! ViaBTC raised over 90 btc in less than 24hrs for their Bitcoin Unlimited cloud mining program (104 points, 40 comments)
    8. "You don't have to wear a tin-foil hat to see that core has been pushing for some things which change the fundamental economic policies of bitcoin; changes which a substantial portion of the community is against." - u/jratcliff63367 (103 points, 82 comments)
    9. Brian Hoffman on Twitter: The fact that the Bitcoin community argues so vehemently that there is no possible alternative to the Core path shows their shortsightedness (88 points, 6 comments)
    10. Andrew Lee (Purse.io CEO) on Twitter: Multiple compatible implementations will Make Bitcoin Great Again (83 points, 16 comments)
  3. 2176 points, 12 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (625 points, 125 comments)
    2. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China (398 points, 101 comments)
    3. BU lead developer Andrew Stone: A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core (232 points, 144 comments)
    4. "The Community Has Spoken" (166 points, 65 comments)
    5. BashCo explains that if you want to discuss non-Core software on /Bitcoin, you must submit a BIP, get a BIP number, wait for peer review, modify BIP, more peer review, start serious coding, start testing, more peer review... then you may discuss it once it is "deemed safe." (163 points, 133 comments)
    6. "I'm not aware of any problem." -Greg Maxwell (158 points, 64 comments)
    7. Yet another example of censorship in /bitcoin. It is no longer possible to believe that the discussion in that subreddit is in any way honest or representative of community opinion. (123 points, 56 comments)
    8. "Segwit Blockers" is a pejorative term which automatically shifts debate to imply that one side is correct and the other is blocking progress. (120 points, 140 comments)
    9. Another post censored from /bitcoin. I'd like to know which rules were broken or what made my comment unacceptable. (71 points, 26 comments)
    10. spez: "We are taking a more aggressive stance against toxic users and poorly behaving communities." -- I wonder if this will apply to Theymos and /bitcoin? (57 points, 20 comments)
  4. 1861 points, 34 submissions: Egon_1
    1. It would be incredibly unfortunate if organic growth in Bitcoin gets dismissed as spam attacks because of suspicion about people's agendas. (146 points, 33 comments)
    2. Is it just me or is anyone else noticing that some of the Core developers are saying 'Bitcoin's creator' instead of saying Satoshi? (139 points, 67 comments)
    3. "It's not really "segwit blockers", it's more "segwit ignorers". The difference is one of not seeing Core as some Reference Code." (135 points, 32 comments)
    4. "Upcoming AMA with Bitcoin Unlimited devs in Chinese Community 8BTC, Nov 19 at 8-10AM Beijing Time" (127 points, 9 comments)
    5. So discussing block size increase is too controversial for /bitcoin but suggesting algorithm change is not? • /Bitcoin (125 points, 76 comments)
    6. "The Bitcoin Unlimited implementation excludes RBF as BU supports zero-confirmation use-cases inherent to peer-to-peer cash." (119 points, 101 comments)
    7. ... Segwit as a SF tries to make non-segwit txs more expensive relative to segwit txs to 'discourage' their use (100 points, 86 comments)
    8. Sergio."Also @Blockstream hid the fact they had applied for the patent. That's misleading (deceptive?). DPL was necessary to protect reputation(1/2)" (93 points, 42 comments)
    9. "Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted." (88 points, 43 comments)
    10. If you're working on BTC remittances or micropayments under the current regime of increasing fees, you're going to have a bad time. (88 points, 28 comments)
  5. 1791 points, 25 submissions: realistbtc
    1. the systematic censorship policy of r\bitcoin is one of the clearest proof of the technical inferiority of blockstream core prescribed solutions : if they were just better , there would be no need for such policy . (219 points, 74 comments)
    2. Mycelium.com on Twitter - ' We say one thing, we lose half our customers. We say another thing, we lose the other half. Thanks bitcoin censorship that isn't a problem! ' (202 points, 134 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on twitter : " Any studies on company success versus amount of posts from C-level execs on Reddit or Twitter?" - " My intuition is 'too much' is bad-- sign of distracted leadership, especially for CTO " (186 points, 70 comments)
    4. just so you know , now nullc is calling jtoomim a scammer : character assassination is a standard operational mode of the guys from blockstream . (129 points, 54 comments)
    5. luke-jr acknowledge that block latency isn't a problem anymore : " block latency has been a big issue in the past as well, but presumably compact/xthin blocks has solved it " - we have to thanks the BU team for that , that in turn pressed blockstream core to finally do something too (116 points, 32 comments)
    6. A glimpse into the mind of greg maxwell : " .... since you're never going to think highly of me again I can continue to whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking mass of people. " (wikipedia history , jan 2006 ) (83 points, 67 comments)
    7. after days , segwit signaling is oscillating between 15-25% . that's a far cry from what blockstream core was expecting . if they were ready to label a 10% resistance ' blockers' , now they will have to come to terms with the fact that thir proposal is simply not good enough . (79 points, 33 comments)
    8. slush on Twitter : ' Just ask BU devs to stop blocking Segwit.' - please stop mining at slush and buying trezors - slush has fallen to the blockstream cartel dark side (78 points, 256 comments)
    9. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " BTCC management team killed its no.1 position by raising fees while everyone wanted to trade in 2013Q4. Similar stupid mindset, right? " (78 points, 9 comments)
    10. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " My partner doesn't have pw of my Twitter to del twits, so Samson Joker pls focus on trolling and destroying BTCC, and not pm him any more. " (72 points, 18 comments)
  6. 1375 points, 17 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. PSA: Even CEOs of major Bitcoin companies are unaware of the suppression of discussion by Theymos and supported by Core supporters. (209 points, 97 comments)
    2. When /bitcoin started the censorship, they prevented honest discussion, split the community, and dramatically slowed down Bitcoin's progress (167 points, 125 comments)
    3. The Bitcoin.com Pool now has over 40 Peta hashes, and 2% of the global hash rate. Some users are reporting being paid as much as 8.5% more bitcoin than other pools. (132 points, 30 comments)
    4. The Bitcoin.com pool has mined over 100 blocks, and nearly 1,500 BTC so far. Looking to come out of closed beta soon. (132 points, 68 comments)
    5. /Bitcoin user caught misrepresenting and lying to attack on chain scaling supporters again (115 points, 97 comments)
    6. As Bitcoin user & enthusiast, I'd be grateful to Core, @Blockstream, and all miners if they would just stick to Satoshi's original plan. Pls RT (92 points, 126 comments)
    7. An interview with Bitcoin Unlimited Developer Andrew Stone (86 points, 24 comments)
    8. Coming very soon: More Cash for your Hash (79 points, 26 comments)
    9. The free On Chain Scaling conference starts today at 17:00 GMT! (78 points, 74 comments)
    10. An example of how a Core supporter intentionally misrepresents the truth to support his position. (71 points, 95 comments)
  7. 1239 points, 46 submissions: chinawat
    1. Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers. • x-post from /Bitcoin (151 points, 133 comments)
    2. "It is too early to talk about the tx fee market before Bitcoin is accepted across the world." - ViaBTC on Twitter (124 points, 13 comments)
    3. /HailCorporate gets wind of /Bitcoin censorship, theymos attempts to justify and downplay his behavior (92 points, 10 comments)
    4. Here we go again. My mempool is just exceed 33k. Prepare for transaction delay posts. (69 points, 48 comments)
    5. jstolfi is at it with the SEC again (48 points, 125 comments)
    6. New York is Gradually Losing its Shot at Becoming a Global Bitcoin Hub (45 points, 8 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin SegWit narrative shifting -- regulars now claiming signaling and activation was always expected to be slow (43 points, 35 comments)
    8. "There's Chaos Everywhere" - Indians Angry As ATMs Run Dry After Cash Ban (39 points, 11 comments)
    9. ViaBTC's Transaction Accelerator Test Results • x-post from /Bitcoin (39 points, 12 comments)
    10. Wikileaks latest insurance files don't match hashes (x-post from /crypto) (38 points, 1 comment)
  8. 1115 points, 12 submissions: BiggerBlocksPlease
    1. Another successful hard fork by Ethereum occurred today. Protocol upgrades are possible. Don't listen to lies from entrenched interests that say otherwise. (202 points, 78 comments)
    2. I think if it comes down to it, Core would rather remain in control, even if it means introducing a small blocksize increase, as opposed to losing control entirely. We should not lose sight of our larger goals no matter what carrots they throw our way: We need a new, un-corrupt dev team. (177 points, 65 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Devs can't just say the price of Bitcoin should be stuck at $100 per coin. The market decides. Just like Core shouldn't say the size of a block is stuck at 1MB. The market should decide! Take centrally planned actors OUT of the equation. This is Bitcoin-- Not the Federal Reserve. (145 points, 39 comments)
    4. Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows. (120 points, 34 comments)
    5. Miner Jiang Zhou'er: "I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive. ..some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation." (95 points, 63 comments)
    6. We need more exclusive content for /btc with watermarks stating against censorship in /bitcoin. The new content will be effective in spreading the word! (79 points, 32 comments)
    7. No one (except the market) knows what the price of Bitcoin should be, just like no one (except the market) knows what the size of blocks should be. Bitcoin Unlimited allows a market-decided blocksize. Bitcoin Core allows a centrally planned blocksize. (74 points, 20 comments)
    8. MYTH: "Bitcoin Unlimited isn't meant for mining." -- FACT: ViaBTC has been mining with BU and has the best performance of ALL pools. [see link inside] (71 points, 61 comments)
    9. It is likely a Core-affiliated extremist will attack pools mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks. I recommend Bitcoin.com Pool goes live ASAP, with over 10% hashrate, so we have multiple pools for redundancy. 10-12% hashrate is not enough in the face of attackers who try to artificially activate Segwit. (64 points, 52 comments)
    10. Theymos: "I know how moderation affects people" ... "This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it and bitcoin.org" (2015) (59 points, 43 comments)
  9. 1111 points, 52 submissions: knight222
    1. ViaBTC: "I think the most important thing is BU has the support of Bitmain and F2pool, they have said privately they will switch to BU, I am very much looking forward to the arrival of that day." (86 points, 68 comments)
    2. /BTC Enthusiasts Want The /Bitcoin Moderators Gone Once And For All (77 points, 9 comments)
    3. Total Bitcoin Transaction Volume Surpassed US$100bn in September (53 points, 17 comments)
    4. Fedora Receives Its Own Electrum Bitcoin Wallet Client (50 points, 4 comments)
    5. IRS Demands Records of 4.8 Million Bitcoin Users over 3 Alleged Tax Dodgers (43 points, 4 comments)
    6. Several Mycelium Users Report Unusually High Bitcoin Transaction Fees (40 points, 38 comments)
    7. Overstock Reveals Latest Effort Within the Bitcoin Space (40 points, 2 comments)
    8. EY Switzerland, World Top Four Accounting Firm, to Accept Bitcoin (40 points, 2 comments)
    9. Chinese dominance in the blockchain space now includes startup investments (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. Will Bitcoin Become the new "Swiss Bank Account"? (31 points, 10 comments)
  10. 939 points, 5 submissions: JohnBlocke
    1. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin (461 points, 251 comments)
    2. Peter Todd in 2013: "If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do?..." (158 points, 85 comments)
    3. UPDATE: Coindesk & Bitcoin Magazine still have not mentioned the $1.2 million donated by members of the Bitcoin industry to fund protocol development. What is their agenda? (118 points, 23 comments)
    4. John Blocke: Echo Chambers (116 points, 53 comments)
    5. Bitcoin companies pledge to donate $1.2M USD to protocol development, and not a peep from the bitcoin media? (86 points, 21 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Noosterdam (3181 points, 564 comments)
  2. H0dlr (2189 points, 354 comments)
  3. ViaBTC (1994 points, 65 comments)
  4. seweso (1887 points, 377 comments)
  5. todu (1883 points, 365 comments)
  6. Helvetian616 (1662 points, 265 comments)
  7. Ant-n (1554 points, 453 comments)
  8. dskloet (1521 points, 230 comments)
  9. MemoryDealers (1500 points, 104 comments)
  10. Egon_1 (1475 points, 134 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin by BeijingBitcoins (625 points, 125 comments)
  2. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin by JohnBlocke (461 points, 251 comments)
  3. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China by BeijingBitcoins (398 points, 101 comments)
  4. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted." by sandakersmann (376 points, 184 comments)
  5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted by blockologist (371 points, 69 comments)
  6. I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything! by ViaBTC (337 points, 858 comments)
  7. Bitcoin Classic is Back! by ThomasZander (279 points, 92 comments)
  8. Problem? No problems here. by mohrt (246 points, 105 comments)
  9. nullc is actively trying to delete Satoshi from history. First he assigned all satoshi commits on github to himself, then he wanted to get rid of the whitepaper as it is and now notice how he never says "Satoshi", he says "Bitcoin's Creator". by blockstreamcoin (243 points, 243 comments)
  10. Censorship test from Gavin: post two positive things one about BU and another about SW, and see what happens by chakrop (240 points, 69 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 206 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  2. 118 points: solex1's comment in Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted."
  3. 110 points: viners's comment in "It cannot be permitted to work." nullc
  4. 97 points: jstolfi's comment in Is LN vaporware and if not why do posters keep saying it is? (x-post from bitcoin)
  5. 95 points: satoshis_sockpuppet's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  6. 91 points: dskloet's comment in Cannot wait for Core trolls who don't understand queue theory to lose it. Grab your popcorn as we finally approach 100% utilization and an ever increasing backlog.
  7. 90 points: BitcoinXio's comment in I love Bitcoin
  8. 86 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  9. 85 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  10. 82 points: Noosterdam's comment in John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

[Informational] [CC0] Maslow's Hierarchy of Coins

Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets

Bitcoin Wallets generate and store the private keys that control a user's funds. These keys are simply random numbers, chosen by the wallet from a range of numbers so vast that it is essentially impossible for there to be a collision with another wallet doing the same thing. Deterministic wallets, also known as HD wallets help to simplify backing up and restoring wallets by using a random seed number to deterministically generate all of a wallet's private keys.

Private Key Backups

Whenever a Bitcoin user receives funds, they need a new private key. This means that the set of numbers that are important to store and back up is increasing indefinitely. In the original Bitcoin wallet, this required refreshing a back-up with a new one every time a user received funds.
Over time, Bitcoin grew more valuable and this burden of security grew more tiresome and costly. To address the issue Satoshi Nakamoto in October of 2010 released Bitcoin version 0.3.14 which contained a key pool feature. This feature automatically pre-generated a set of keys, to remain in abeyance for the user's next receipt of funds. This made backing up a much less frequent necessity, only being necessary after key pool exhaustion.
Over the following years, many other methods of improving key backups were tried. A popular concept of a paper wallet arose: printing a private key onto paper to store in a secure location. However this concept fell out of favor as being too complicated, vulnerable to printer information leaks, and encouraging address re-use.

Type 1 Deterministic Wallets

In August of 2011 Mike Caldwell sought to simplify and streamline the process of managing a collection of private keys. He created a Windows application called Bitcoin Address Utility that used a single random pass-phrase to deterministically create private keys from a single seed: essentially choosing one random number and then feeding it into a formula that would always produce more random numbers from the starting one.
This created a much easier way to backup private keys: simply secure the original random seed and restoring becomes a simple exercise of running the seed through the algorithm again.

Type 2 Deterministic Wallets

Mike Caldwell's Type 1 deterministic wallet design was based on a simple scheme that had a significant limitation: to receive funds with a Type 1 wallet required also having access to the private keys that could spend them. In situations such as merchant scripts or exchange wallets, this represented a security issue.
Before Mike Caldwell published his Type 1 wallet, in June of 2011 Greg Maxwell had already outlined a theoretical improvement to the Type 1 scheme, in which the public and private key generation might be separated to improve the security of stored funds. In Greg's outlined Type 2 scheme, a script could use what is called a master public key to generate new addresses, without ever being able to spend those funds.
In February of 2012, Pieter Wuille came up with a formalization and standardized version of this concept, in BIP 32. A surge of wallet development activity followed the deterministic wallet concept. Since the master seed behind the wallet may be represented as a simple series of twelve words, it was widely considered to be the superior method for Bitcoin wallet private key generation.
Alan Reiner was the first to implement a Type 2 seed in Armory Wallet, and helped give feedback to the BIP 32 formalization. Since then, every major wallet has moved to support the feature.

BIP 44 Deterministic Wallets

After BIP 32, development of Type 2 deterministic wallets progressed to a state where additional features and standardization was sought to be defined. In April of 2014 Marek Palatinus, also known as Slush, and Pavol Rusnak, Slush's employee at his company SatoshiLabs, sought to advance the state of deterministic wallets by adapting advancements in their own Type 2 hardware wallet Trezor into a standard they authored in BIP 44.
Features promoted by the BIP 44 standard included a mechanism for internal pass-phrase protected accounts inside of a wallet seed, a standard for using the wallet seed across multiple chains, such as for Bitcoin Testnet, and an increased standardization of gap limits and change address separation.

Deterministic Wallet Caveats

Despite the huge improvement in the state of Bitcoin technology that HD wallets represent, there are some outstanding issues and drawbacks or gotchas that may present difficulties.
Deterministic wallets generally present users with a dictionary derived random pass-phrase that actually represents a master seed number in a form that is easier for humans to deal with. But this ease-of-use has sometimes tempted developers into allowing users to set their own pass-phrase, a very bad idea. Users are extremely bad at choosing a properly random pass-phrase, and this behavior can lead to loss of funds. For this reason, all well-maintained wallets have ceased the practice of encouraging users to invent their own pass-phrases.
Another issue that sometimes confronts users in unexpected ways is that the seeds created by deterministic wallets should not be shared between wallets from different software projects. The reason for this is that the standard for deterministic wallets is generally not actually adopted by all wallets, or there are still areas left unspecified. Due to these small differences, seeds may superficially appear to be share-able between wallets, but in actuality leave some coins difficult to access from the non-originating wallet. To switch between deterministic wallets, the best practice recommendation is to initiate fund transfers on the Blockchain.
From a security and privacy perspective, under normal circumstances a deterministic wallet is just as good as a wallet in which random keys are individually generated. However use of the public master key can prove the exception to that rule. Although it is called a public master key, for privacy reasons it should not be shared publicly, as it can link all wallet addresses together. Another important reason it should not be shared is that if a single private key derived from the private seed is leaked and the public master key is also known, all the other private keys may be derived as well. This type of theft is quite uncommon, but for these reasons it is strongly recommended that the master public key still be treated as guarded information.
One practice that must differ between using an individually generated wallet and a deterministic wallet is the practice of creating addresses that are never used. HD wallets have a key implementation detail in the way that they calculate wallet balances: they go through their deterministic algorithm sequentially to determine if each private key has been used, stopping when no further activity is detected. This is a critical optimization, an HD wallet cannot scan endlessly or know automatically all of its balance information without individual queries. To provide a safety margin, HD wallets use something called a gap limit, which represents the number of keys checked that have no activity before the balance query will cease its sequential checking. This gap limit can means that creating many addresses that are never used is a bad practice and can lead to users mistakenly believing their funds have been lost, if more unused addresses are created beyond the gap limit safety margin.
A powerful feature of BIP 44 HD wallets is the internal pass phrase account system. This feature addresses a common security concern amongst people who worry about keeping their seed backups secure from theft: it adds an internal password to the stored seed. The feature also powers another use-case, a scenario in which the owner is confronted with the seed and forced to give access to it. As a precautionary measure, the owner may create a red-herring pass phrase and a real pass-phrase, pretending that the red-herring phrase contains the entirety of the funds when forced to open the wallet under duress. But with this power also comes risk deriving from any situation where users choose pass phrases to remember. Human generated pass phrases should generally be considered weak: a brute-force attack can most often bypass them. And memorized pass phrases can be easily forgotten, leading to an annoying situation where funds are temporarily inaccessible, or if a truly strong pass-phrase has been chosen, permanently lost.
submitted by pb1x to writingforbitcoin [link] [comments]

How to Create SlushPool Account Bitcoin mining pool - Slushpool worker tutorial BITCOIN Mining Tutorial Mining Classic Blocks on Slush's Pool Bitcoin mining pool - BTC.com tutorial

Slush Pool was the very first mining pool, and, over the last decade, its users have mined more than 1 million Bitcoins using its services and software: BraiinsOS and BraiinsOS+. And if that doesn’t sound impressive enough, you should also take this into consideration: in the last 6 months, Slush Pool collected more than 9% of all Bitcoins on Slush pool as two-factor authentication, wallet address locking along with a read-only login token, which is provided by the users if someone else is monitoring your Bitcoin mining. Slush Pool runs on highly secured servers, which protects the Bitcoin wallets of the user. Pros. Slush Pool is a well established oldest mining pool. Slush was the first pool and currently mines about 3% of all blocks. As a matter of fact it is probably one of the best and most popular despite not being one of the biggest. Categories Bitcoin , Cryptocurrency Tags Best Mining Pools All Over The Globe , Bitcoin , Blockchain , Mining , Mining pool , Pool , Pool Mining 3. Setup your payout address. To collect your reward you have to set a payout address. If you don't have an address, you need to get a bitcoin wallet first: bitcoin.org; bitcointrezor.com; Additional Information. Detailed step by step tutorial on how to setup a miner can be found in the Advanced Mining section. You can use one worker name for Payout address is the Bitcoin address where we will send you your rewards. If you do not have any Bitcoin address yet there are multiple wallet providers out there where you can create your own. We do recommend to use Bitcoin TREZOR for your coins storage since it is the safest device currently available on the market. However there are other wallet providers and we recommend full clients like

[index] [17108] [19623] [11658] [18041] [4786] [4129] [30873] [30297] [7639] [11012]

How to Create SlushPool Account

Antminer S9 profit slushpool vs bitcoin pool mining - Bitcoin or Bitcoin cash? - Duration: 2:11. Miner Digi 3,918 views. 2:11. Let your computer earn you money with Bitcoin Miner on slushpool. This slushpool mining pool tutorial will demonstrate how to setup your bitcoin miner. #BitcoinMiner #miningpool #cryptomining #mining. Slushpool is the oldest bitcoin mining pool, and the first known to be publicly available. This tutorial will demonstrate worker setup on slushpool mining pool. Slushpool bitcoin mining pool - worker setup tutorial - Duration: 5:10. DudeTV 53,887 views. ... ANTMINER S7 with SLUSH POOL PAYOUT - Duration: 1:34. CALI CRYPTO 8,208 views. Save in Gold before it’s too late! https://www.goldmoney.com/w/yemira Sign up for the Best Canadian Bitcoin Exchange https://www.quadrigacx.com/?ref=aigvstmy...

Flag Counter