Bitcoin Exchange Cryptocurrency Exchange Binance

Thank you, Greg Maxwell, for sticking up for us. This awesome reply to Mike Hearn shows it.

(Quoted text by Mike Hearn. Reply text by Greg Maxwell.)
It was well .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.
No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later. "Small devices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have been any such understanding.
The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words: [...] Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos and the like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the system for "small devices".
I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you have been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me about what the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about. It's not some personality cult - the reason I keep beating you over the head with Satoshi's words is because it's that founding vision of the project that brought everyone together, and gave us all a shared goal.
Mike, my first use of Bitcoin was in 2009. I wasn't vigorously active in the Bitcoin community until the beginning of 2011, indeed. But this is just a couple months after you (E.g. first code available for BitcoinJ was March 2011-- if you go by account times my account was created May 5th 2011 vs yours Dec 14th 2010; less than five months after yours). I was also working with related systems long before (E.g. RPOW in 2004). So give me a break, there is no rank to pull here.
Yet again you've managed to call me a bullshitter and guilty of "invention" when in fact I'm actually quoting the system's creator (although without the explicit fallacious argument from authority style you seem prefer). For someone who seems to base all his arguments on interpretations of someone's words you sure seem to call their words lies awfully often:
"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale." [...] "Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices." ----
If you'll note,, the post was Dec 10th 2010 and, presumably, made with an improved understanding of the implications of the system then comments made in 2008 before the system was even operational.
(The same message also mentions that smart contracts can be used to create trustless trade with off-chain systems; As well, later in that thread: "it will be much easier if you can freely use all the space you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in Bitcoin's chain.")
I haven't bothered arguing from old posts in the past because I find the practice of argument from authority on this subject abhorrent. It undermines the unique value of Bitcoin to argue based on a single personal opinion, to do so is to miss the point of Bitcoin in a deep and fundamental way. And in my opinion what you're doing is actually much worse: arguing from distortions of random quotations. But it's hard to tolerate the continue revision of history from you in silence.
Moreover, I find those arguments with respect Moore's law especially unconvincing because while I cannot read the mind of people who are not a part of this discussion and haven't chosen to comment, I've used the same argument myself and I know what I was thinking when I used it (and can establish as much, since I'm more verbose I elaborated on it): When someone pointed at Bitcoins global broadcast medium and loudly said that it cannot work because its absurd; and it's very easy to point out broad scaling behavior about what Bitcoin could achieve with complete centralization. Once this has been accepted the argument is over in Bitcoin's favor: Bitcoin's competition has highly centralized administration and so once someone has accepted Bitcoin can (in some way) accommodate the worlds transactions, even if that comes at the cost of 99% of the decentralization, it's clear that Bitcoin offers something interesting. (And for example, I elaborated on this in a Wiki edit in Aug 2011, -- though I shouldn't need to point this out to you, since it was you who subsequently erased these words from the page.)
Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the mining ecosystem? [...] Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else.
For example, you fought vigorously to get Bitcoin Core off, which would ensure that users were not previously equipped with a node suitable for operating mining (which then contributed substantially to the poor usability of solutions like P2Pool; with 98% of it's install time spent waiting for Bitcoin Core to sync).
You've (in my view) aggressively advocated increasing the resource utilization of Bitcoin-- increasing the cost to participate in mining without delegation, with no consideration (or at least disclosure) of the ramifications on the system overall:
Gavin, for example, has advocated removing mining support from Bitcoin core on several occasions; and constantly professes ignorance on anything mining. His own interests are up to him, but to not be concerned about a central part of the system for anyone working on changing it at such a deep level is-- I think-- a bit problematic.
But I didn't intend to lay blame here, if anything I blame myself for not being more proactive in arguing against things things in the past.
The trend towards mining centralization is a result of various forces, many of which are modulated by the very things we're discussing here (or could be modulated by things we haven't discussed). You're the principle advocate of increasing the cost of a decentralized ecosystem around verification and driving the system towards a state where it is only viable in a more centralized mode. Bitcoin is an artificial construction, not a force of nature, and when someone seeks to change it they ought to take responsibility for what happens--- it's not acceptable to say "oh well, it's not eh fault of anyone" when the incentives drive it in a bad direction.
Is that your strategy on the systems resource consumption in general? Full throttle, no action when it goes off the rails, when the easily foreseeable negative outcomes happen it won't be the "fault" of anyone? If so, I don't think that is acceptable. We need to face the areas in which the system is failing, now and in the future... and not just pump for growth at all cost and shrug and say "oh well, we tried" when the predictable failure happens. It's far from clear to me that the world will get a second shot at this in the next several decades if Bitcoin lapses into the same-old, same-old.
And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!
The fixation comment was a specific reply to your long list of the "only reasons" to run a full node, which seemed to be basically said that the only reason to run one was to act as a server for SPV clients; as it listed several points on that-- all three of the numbered points were "serving SPV wallets"-- and buried the rest. I'm sorry if I read too much into it, though it's also consistent with your prior responses that the non-scalability of Bitcoin as a whole is irrelevant due to SPV.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally bad with SPV, it is what it is; it's a tool and an important one. But at the moment it is far more limited than you give it credit for both because it is only secure under certain assumptions which have been provably violated not just at risk of violation, and because the more complete vision of it (e.g. with fraud proofs) has never been implemented.
Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that reason".
Now that I've established the "small device" text you're railing on here actually came from the system's creator prior to your involvement, can I expect an admission that your own "personal liking" doesn't have special authority over the system? But I hope you don't create an altcoin: I think it's possible to find ways to accommodate people with very different preferences under one tent, and if we are to build and support a worldwide system we must find those ways rather than fragmenting the marketplace.
submitted by johnnyrivers to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Andreas Antonopoulos - Collection of memorable quotes New Arrma Limitless Reveal! + 12S Infraction Bash! - YouTube How to get set up on Bitcoin Exchange in Meta Trader 4 ... Bitcoin the next big thing Bitcoin Q&A: Do altcoins threaten to replace bitcoin?

Below, we’ll examine some of the most important digital currencies other than bitcoin. First, though, a caveat: it is impossible for a list like this to be entirely comprehensive. The following email message allegedly from Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto appears in the blockchain. (It's almost certainly not really from him.) It seems to be referring to the removal of some Script opcodes from the Bitcoin server earlier and making the corresponding change to the Electrum server. My guess is this message is someone ... One of my colleagues applied results of js-linting, so there is a huge part of diff now where all that's actually changed on a line is just single quotes ' to double quotes " - var mod = require('... Bitcoin 0.1 actually did just compute the longest chain by number of blocks. Satoshi fixed this pretty early IIRC. I've heard this but I went through many of the early patches a while ago and didn't notice it. I'll have to look for it explicitly next time. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other Unix-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. It is not recommended to use Bitcoin Core on unsupported systems. From Bitcoin Core 0.20.0 onwards, macOS versions earlier than 10.12 are no longer supported. Additionally, Bitcoin Core does not yet change appearance when macOS “dark mode ...

[index] [21298] [42942] [24880] [8755] [48082] [45421] [10210] [11776] [1986] [27607]

Andreas Antonopoulos - Collection of memorable quotes

Find out how to set up the software Meta Trader 4 to trade cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Litecoin on the btc-e exchange. Download Zebpay, the world's simplest bitcoin mobile wallet and get 100 bits free: Bitcoin quotes by famous peopl... Andreas Antonopoulos on the Future Of Bitcoin Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Crash Course with Andreas Antonopoulos - Jefferson Club Dinner Meeting Bitcoin - Dumb Networks, Innovation and the Festival of ... In this Q&A snippet, Andreas discusses the competition between bitcoin and other crypto-currencies, also looking at the historical possibility that the brand... front seal: REAR DIFF BEARING N SEAL VIDEO: in this video i show everyone how to remove t...