Angela Walch: "Is there a resource that keeps an up-to-date list of those who have commit access to the Bitcoin Core Github repo & who pays them for their work on Bitcoin? In the past, getting this info has required digging. Is that still the case? "
A design I did for an on-boarding wizard for Bitcoin Core - any feedback would be much appreciated. Please read the relevant GitHub issue before replying - https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/81.
@ the trolls saying "No one uses Bitcoin Cash", let's look at the last 60 blocks...
I'm just gonna count blocks over 100kb: 584744 200 kb, 548 transactions 584742 187 kb, 461 584739 139 kb, 429 584738 690 kb, 1,698 584737 200 kb, 561 584735 131 kb, 411 584730 225 kb, 630 584729 101 kb, 344 584728 191 kb, 523 584727 238 kb, 518 584726 358 kb, 843 584723 153 kb, 437 584722 357 kb, 1,128 584719 311 kb, 927 584718 643 kb, 54 584715 127 kb, 419 584713 263 kb, 810 584712 499 kb, 1388 584710 242 kb, 749 584709 306 kb, 863 584708 198 kb, 557 584707 151 kb, 431 584706 571 kb, 1,537 584704 188 kb, 600 584703 129 kb, 352 584702 489 kb, 1,497 584700 267 kb, 767 584699 206 kb, 544 584698 116 kb, 347 584694 787 kb, 2,159 584691 228 kb, 551 So, out of the last 60 blocks, ten-hour's worth, 32 are more than 100 kb, with 19 of them being over 200 kb and 10 being over 300 kb. If we had a 1mb blocksize limit, this would already be extremely alarming levels of activity, meaning that we are too close to the blocksize cap, and this looks similar to what BTC looked like in roughly 2015 / 2016, back when Mike Hearn was ringing the alarm bells about the need to raise the BTC blocksize, and the Core crowd had just taken over control of the Bitcoin Core Github due to Wladimir and realized they could therefore do anything they wanted to BTC as long as they convinced the BTC community that it was in their best interests. Using this position of authority and control of both Bitcointalk.org and bitcoin, they implemented censorship so that their push to change the direction of bitcoin would be effective, they pushed out mods from bitcoin that weren't on board with them. You might also note that the BCH price is currently about the same as what BTC was back in 2016 when it had this level of activity, shortly before the 2016 Halvening. At this time BTC was worth $400 and after the halvening quickly shot to $700, and increased during the 2017 bull-run. But it was during the 2017 bull run that it finally happened, the limit of the blocksize was completely reach. Blocks were 1 mb and maxed out, and the only way to get your transaction through next block was to pay ridiculous fees. I myself paid a $5 fee that was stuck for an entire week, and a friend of mine paid a $50 fee that was stuck for 2 hours. Mike Hearn was making noise and ringing the alarm bells for the need for a bigger block cap all the way back in 2015, he knew this would happen, and the Core devs, today known as Blockstream, iced him out of BTC development, ignored his Github pushes, and attacked his character behind his back like guttersnipes. So he left. Cryptocurrency lost one of its greatest developers. They did the same to Gavin Andresen, the man that Satoshi Nakamoto himself entrusted with caring for the bitcoin project. He has since left as well. Make no mistake, the Core devs are enemies of bitcoin as a concept, they have hijacked the project, completely changed its direction and are currently painting it into a corner while lulling their community and stoking tribalistic anger at all competitors. https://imgur.com/pLE0a5P.png This "no one uses bitcoin cash" line is going to die very soon, because it looks like it will not be long before BCH surpasses BTC on transactions. And I predict right now that their new line will be that these are simply spam transactions and not legitimate activity. Even though we all know that paying a transaction fee means a transaction is legit, it's a use of the system, regardless of intent. There is no such thing as a spam transaction that pays a miner's fee. Anyone claiming no one uses BCH is a liar or a shill, let this be the end of that idiotic claim.
Hello Bitcoin We've ramped up the profile pages for all of the top crypto assets https://messari.io/asset/bitcoin/profile Each profile is loaded with a ton of new information from project history, investors, advisors, regulatory information, contributors, roadmap and a whole bunch more. Our analysts put together a concise overview of Bitcoin governance, among other things:
Model Overview Bitcoin governance is the process by which protocol rules are decided upon, implemented, and enforced. Users (full nodes) adopt new rules according to their subjective views on what Bitcoin is and should be. If two or more individuals adopt the same set of rules, they form an inter-subjective social consensus of what “Bitcoin” is. It is in this respect that many conceptualize Bitcoin as being set by a social contract. Every time rule changes are contemplated, the rules of the contract are decided and renegotiated continuously between stakeholders. Protocol changes are legitimized when users agree to adopt the new changes. Once adopted, the Bitcoin protocol automates the enforcement of the social contract. Process Overview Protocol development is governed by a proposal process whereby anyone in the open source Bitcoin community can submit Bitcoin Improvement Proposals ("BIPs"). After debate by the community, when consensus has emerged, the Bitcoin Core maintainers merge code changes into Bitcoin Core's GitHub Repository. Once new code has been implemented into the Bitcoin Core specification, users of the network (full nodes) must be persuaded to adopt the new changes. Protocol changes are “ratified” on-chain when the majority of the network adopts the upgrade and doesn’t break consensus. Once rules are adopted on-chain, all new transactions and block proposals are subject to the agreed upon rules. Full nodes only accept new transactions and block proposals that are valid according to the rules of the Bitcoin protocol. Anything that is not valid will be rejected. Thus, miners must implement the prevailing rules of the network in order to participate in the block creation process. User Activated Hard Fork 2017's User Activated Soft Fork Event provided an illustrative case study on Bitcoin governance in practice. As early as 2010, shortly after Satoshi implemented a block limit into Bitcoin, discussions around block size began. These discussions largely stayed in the background until 2017 when tensions within the Bitcoin community rose over rising transaction fees and increasingly divergent opinions on scaling Bitcoin. In May 2017, a meeting between miners, businesses, investors, and core developers took place at the Consensus conference in New York, in what is now referred to as the "New York Agreement". The product of this meeting was an agreement to support SegWit (a soft fork) and a 2MB block size (hard fork). Known as SegWit2x, this proposal was backed by over 80% of the network’s hash rate. However, despite the desires of miners, users wanted to activate SegWit without the block size increase. This plan was proposed as BIP 148, a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, from a pseudonymous developer named Shaolinfry. Soon after, users set a date (August 1, 2017) where Bitcoin would soft fork to support SegWit and keep the 1MB block size. Eventually, enough nodes signaled support for it, forcing miners to accept or have their blocks rejected by the network. Many see this user-activated soft fork (UASF) as a pivotal moment in Bitcoin’s history. The philosophy underpinning the event was that users controlled the network, not miners. The event not only illustrated the balance of power within Bitcoin's network, but also calmed suspicions that parties such as miners, businesses, or Bitcoin Core developers, controlled Bitcoin. Learn More: Bitcoin GovernanceUnpacking Bitcoin's Social ContractWho Controls Bitcoin Core?Bitcoin Miners Beware: Invalid Blocks Need Not Apply
04-01 18:34 - 'Github is backing up the codebases for Bitcoin Core and Ethereum under the Arctic ice in Svalbard - The Block' (theblockcrypto.com) by /u/infinite_dendrite removed from /r/Bitcoin within 3-13min
@binance: RT @BinanceAcademy: Who can contribute to #bitcoin? Anyone can. To demonstrate this, we put together a visualization of the Bitcoin Core developments on Github using Gource https://t.co/8Acvdqo4gv
Banned from /r/bitcoinclassic (the fake one) for pointing out their misappropriation
I was just banned from /bitcoinclassic for posting the following comment to a thread titled "Bitcoin Classic Source Code" which linked to Bitcoin Core's github (github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin). My comment was:
This post's title is misleading. The link points to the Bitcoin Core code, not the Bitcoin Classic code: "Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree" Unless of course Core is renaming itself to Classic now. I wonder why the mod smartfbrankings would mislead readers in this sub in this way.
smartfbrankings replied to my comment with a comment stating that Bitcoin Classic's code was identical to Core's for now, and that if Core did a "controversial hard fork" he would fork the Core code and call it Classic:
When contacting the mods to explain the reasoning for my ban, they first changed the URL linked to by the post to https://www.reddit.com/domain/github.com/, and then took the sub private. Subsequently, I received a mod mail stating the reason:
"Because you are not welcome to post there."
I am planning to contact the reddit admins to inform them of this subreddit squatting behaviour by /bitcoinclassic mods smartfbrankings and Theymos. It serves no useful purpose other than to interfere with actual development of the Bitcoin software. Screenshot of topic before privatization: http://imgur.com/VH71hBW
Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
Bitcoin Core (I'll let lawyers work out who they are) are clearly infringing Craig Wright's copyright. In fact they removed his copyright (in form of his pseudonym Satoshi) from BCore's source code. CSW if you are reading I think it's time for DMCA Takedown @ Github.
Yesterday, a pull request was made to the bitcoin core github repository, introducing code and a flag (-bip148) allowing one to run bitcoin core with BIP148 rules, essentially the same functionality as the current UASF-Segwit:0.3 client, but with a set-able flag that is off by default. This is the second pull request of its kind, after the first failed to receive support (on by default and no option to set as off) and it seems like this one does fair better and might even be eventually merged and shipped at some point. There are probably folks who would like to run the UASF client but are concerned about binaries from unknown sources, and who will possibly run the Core binary with the -bip148 flag if the software allowed. It's important to realize that in this case, such concerns are not justified, and that the UASF-Segwit:0.3 client is vetted and reviewed as much as Core software, and it's as safe to run as binary release of Core, if you already trust the same source and people who sign it. Usually, when Core software is released, a file named SHA256SUM.asc is published as well as the maintainter's public key (in Core's case, it's Wladimir). The SHA256SUM.asc file contains hashes of packaged releases to various operating systems, and a signature signing those hashes, certifying that if you have a file who's hash matches the one mentioned in the signed SHA256SUM.asc file, then this is the actual one that was released by Core. The UASF client is built on top of core, using very minimal (though significant in spirit) changes which have already been reviewed by many developers, and it is known not to be malicious in code. The released binaries unfortunately do not have signed SHA256SUM.asc file, but we are still able to verify that the code used in building the release is the same one that has been reviewed on github by many eyes. We can do this by validating the gitian build results and comparing them to the released packages' hashes. The gitian build process is clever in the sense that it is deterministic, and for anyone who runs the process, the results should be the same if nothing is changed in the code or in the operating system used to build the code into a binary. The results are also signed by the person doing the process, so as more people run the process and sign it, we can be sure that what we get as a package matches what we should expect if we build it ourselves. For the UASF client, there are already 3 builders and signers who also regularly sign the Core gitian build, with one actually being Wladimir, so if you already run Core, you should have no issue trusting the same signer to run the UASF release after verifying the gitian build results. You'll need some program like sha256sum to get the SHA256 hash of files, and PGP software. I will be using gpg. Files you'll need : The binaries applicable for your operating system from [removed (self moderated)- see the official website] I will use bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz for this example, since this is what I run. A builder's public key file Any will do but I will use the first one for this example, since essentially it's the same one that signs the Core releases.
Here we see that the file was renamed. This is not important, since the content remained the same. Verify the key
$ gpg --keyid-format LONG sub 2048F69705ED890DE427 2011-08-24
Look for 7481 0B01 2346 C9A6 on http://laanwj.github.io/about/ for example (the last 8 bytes of the full length key) Convert the key into a similar format which can be used on the fly (for simplicity, so we don't have to walk through creating a keychain)
$ gpg --dearmor laanwj-key.bin
This will produce no output, but a new file will be created named laanwj-key.bin. This is the same key in a different format that gpg can also verify. Verify the signature over the gitian build using the public key and signature
$ gpg --no-default-keyring --keyring ./laanwj-key.bin --verify ./bitcoin-linux-0.14-build.assert.sig gpg: assuming signed data in `./bitcoin-linux-0.14-build.assert' gpg: Signature made Mon 24 Apr 2017 11:57:58 AM IDT using RSA key ID 2346C9A6 gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan " gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 71A3 B167 3540 5025 D447 E8F2 7481 0B01 2346 C9A6
Note the 3rd line, the signature is valid. The 4th and 5th line only warn us that we never suggested trust in the key to gpg itself, and the last line is Wladimir's full key as we saw from his website. At this point, we should be convinced that the file we have was indeed the same one built and signed by the key, so it should be safe to run and use. Hopefully this reduces concern, and we could have more participants running UASF binaries today, which they are safe to replace to a new Core release should it be shipped with the BIP148 code.
The fact that a Core dev helped fix a bug in BCH shows that Core devs are also BCH devs, and the the Core community's arguments about github commits are weakened if not completely null and void. As Bitcoin Cash gains dominance, more and more Bitcoin devs will be coming over to work on it.
I would also like to point out that chain splitting bugs have been common on Bitcoin throughout its history, with a 51 block chain split in 2010 and a 24 block chain splot in 2013. So don't believe the FUD that BCH was going to die unless Core saved us.
Bitcoin Core . The base of a sovereign Bitcoin node is a fully validating Bitcoin client. We are using Bitcoin Core, the reference implementation, but not the only option available. This application will download the whole blockchain from other peers and validate every single transaction that ever happened. After validation, the client can check all future transactions whether they are valid ... Development discussion takes place on GitHub and the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Less formal development discussion happens on irc.freenode.net #bitcoin-core-dev (web interface, logs). To report an issue, please see the bug reporting page. Code Review. Bitcoin Core is security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced ... Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub. Bitcoin Core is programmed to decide which block chain contains valid transactions. The users of Bitcoin Core only accept transactions for that block chain, making it the Bitcoin block chain that everyone else wants to use. For the latest developments related to Bitcoin Core, be sure to visit the project’s official website. Bitcoin Core activity 2019-2020. Among the more active contributors in code review and commits since beginning to contribute in March 2019. #19 all-time of the Bitcoin Core contributors with 183 commits merged into Bitcoin Core and a primary focus on code review.
Bitcoin GitHub History Visualization - Multiple Projects (Jan 2015)