How to Fix Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transactions [Reverse]

Bitcoin transaction stuck unconfirmed for over a week, pruned from blockchain

Hey guys, I've never had an issue with bitcoin before but recently I was trying to send bitcoin from my electrum wallet to another address and for whatever reason it has been stuck for over a week now. It's not a huge transaction (0.02btc) and since BTC has been slow to transfer recently I upped the fee on electrum to .0009 instead of the default .0005 which has served me well up until the past month . The result? Being stuck for over a week now
On blockchain it was just stuck as unconfirmed, but I checked today and now I get a message saying Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database.
Are these coins ever coming back?
submitted by kdjslkajlkdsa to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Transaction sent with blockchain.info stuck with the "unconfirmed" status /r/Bitcoin

Transaction sent with blockchain.info stuck with the submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin transaction stuck unconfirmed for over a week, pruned from blockchain /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoin transaction stuck unconfirmed for over a week, pruned from blockchain /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

HELP ! Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction ... 0 confirmation, "STUCK" ... how to recover ?

Here's the story I wanted to transfer all my BTC from Ledger to an exchange (CDC) I never touch fees, I let the Ledger put the best for me, even if it's high, I'm sure around 100% the transaction will go well.
EXCEPT TONIGHT.
Althoug fees around 9 dollars, my BTC are stuck in the blockchain ...
"UNCONFIRMED"
"0 CONFIRMATION"
and it's now hours (maybe 5 hours from now)
I have read this https://coincentral.com/cancel-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transaction/
I don't understand, but the question is : is this trick compatible with Ledger BTC Wallet ?
In other words : is BTC Ledger wallet compatible with RBF ? (WTF is that, seriously ...)
I want to cry right now, because it was all my BTC bought during 3 years, and ... there are in same time somewhere and nowhere, my heart is hard pumping.
Thanks for your help :(
submitted by rodmynameisrod to ledgerwallet [link] [comments]

Almost 48 hours and no confirmation yet. Are my bitcoins lost forever?

I've sent a tx 2 days ago and it STILL hasn't been confirmed. What happens in this scenario? Do my bitcoins go back to my wallet? Can't I rebroadcast the transaction?
EDIT: It's a shame stuff like this is happening when bitcoin was supposed to be the "instant payment, low fee" solution to fiat money.
EDIT 2: It seems like it has already been rejected
Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database.
EDIT 3: I opened my wallet and it automatically rebroadcasted the tx. It got confirmed within an hour now, same fee.
submitted by Some1CP to btc [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Question on Sending Bitcoin and Change Addresses

Hey all, I have a question on sending bitcoin and change address. Looked for answers on google or bitcointalk but with no avail.

Say if I run a service that requires me to send bitcoin in sort of high frequency, e.g. bitcoin casino, exchange, mining pool, etc. Will I ever run into a case where I could not send bitcoin out due to funds still stuck in unconfirmed change addresses. E.g. I have 1BTC balance, and I'm processing a 0.2 BTC pay-out to a user (say the transaction output is 0.2 BTC to the user and 0.8 BTC to my return address). Because of the 0.8 BTC is still an unconfirmed transaction, I can't pay other users even when the amount they requested is <0.8 BTC.
This is a hypothetical scenario with an oversimplified UTXO construct, but how does online casinos, exchanges, mining pools, fix this problem of potentially not being able to make payouts because a majority of their funds are stuck in change address pending to be confirmed on the blockchain?

Thanks in advance!
submitted by factoree to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"The Flippening" explained, how BCH will take over BTC.

https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/7cg9y2/bitcoin_btc_to_bitcoin_cash_bch_mass_migration/dppwbmf/
[–]tachikoma01 an hour ago
Could you explain to me how the hashing power influence the price of the crypto please?
Here it is:
1) There is a mass migration from BTC to BCH going on.
2) But BTC was saved from massive price crashing, because people couldn't escape fast enough, their sell transactions weren't being mined, so they couldn't confirm.
3) There are currently 180,000 unconfirmed transactions stuck in the Bitcoin system (https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/), many are people rushing to sell BTC to buy BCH.
4) Transactions are averaged around 400bytes (https://charts.bitcoin.com/chart/transaction-size), since Blockstream Core insisted on keeping block size at 1MB, you only confirm about 2500tx per block on BTC. (https://blockchain.info)
5) Bitcoin has a built-in system that automatically adjust the mining difficulty, so regardless of what the total hash rate is, you'll still end up with roughly 10 minutes per new block mined, this is known as the "difficulty adjustment".
6) The difficulty adjustment is not instant, it is only recalculated every 2016 blocks (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty), under normal circumstances, it readjusts every 2016 x 10 minutes, or every 14 days.
7) If the hash rate increased before the adjustment block, then new blocks will appear faster than normal.
8) If the hash rate decreased before the adjustment block, then new blocks will appear slower than normal.
9) The problem we have here is, when Bitcoin Cash was created a few months ago (cloned from Bitcoin), we knew Bitcoin was going to have a lot more hash rate than Bitcoin Cash, so we couldn't clone the difficulty adjustment algorithm, we had to use our own. Otherwise Bitcoin Cash would need 20*10, or 200 minutes to mine a block (assuming Bitcoin Cash only had 5% of Bitcoin's hash power).
10) Bitcoin Cash was created in an emergency situation, so we didn't have much time to work on the difficulty algorithm, it was a rushed job and it didn't work well, it was good enough to help Bitcoin Cash survive, but not good enough to have a smooth curve, it was always either way too difficult or way too easy, new blocks were created either way too quick or way too slow, and it took too long to readjust again.
11) At this moment Bitcoin Cash is too easy to mine (was 4 times easier than normal, even more when BCH was worth more), about half the miners from BTC went to mine BCH instead, because it's more profitable.
12) Back to the 180,000 unconfirmed BTC transactions stuck in the system, normally, it takes 10 minutes to mine a block and confirm 2500tx, but now it takes 20 minutes per block because half the miners went to mine BCH.
13) 20 minutes per block * (180000tx/2500tx per block) = 24 hours. So it'd take 24 hours mine all the stuck tx and clear the jam, IF, and only IF there are no new transactions constantly coming in.
14) There are always new tx coming in, and old tx are being mined with half the miners, so we ended up with people waiting 72hrs and still couldn't get their BTC tx confirmed.
15) This would not happen if Blockstream Core increased the block size from 1MB to 2MB, but they deliberately stalled for years, so that one day they can force people to use their sidechain service by paying them fees (this is officially admitted by Blockstream).
16) BCH is currently too easy to mine, the new BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) will improve the situation, it'll be much smoother at keeping the difficulty at around 10minutes per block regardless of hash rate changes, it'll no longer be too easy or too hard to mine for a sustained period of time.
17) The new algorithm will drive miners back to mine the more profitable BTC, at least until BCH is worth more than BTC to mine, some say the flippening price is about $4000, where BTC drops below $4000 and BCH goes above $4000, at which point, BCH will be more profitable to mine again, even with the new DAA.
18) Once that happens, BTC will likely enter a death spiral, because BTC is still using the 14days difficulty adjustment period.
19) The next difficulty adjustment block for BTC is 1842 blocks from now (https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty).
20) This make it the perfect time to strike BTC, normally 1842 blocks @ 10mins per block, takes 13 days for the next readjustment.
21) But if we can push BCH's price towards $4000, and drive BTC's price down towards $4000 within a few days, then 10 days for the next readjustment can turn into 20 days (if BTC loses 50% miners), 20 can turn into 40 (if BTC loses 75% miners), eventually BTC will enter a death spiral and get stuck for months, during which its price will crash beyond recovery. This is known as the "flippening".
22) Flippening is what the people are currently working on, people are tired of paying $50 fee and waiting 24 hours to confirm a simple transaction on Blockstream Core's Bitcoin, that's just not how Bitcoin was designed to work.
23) We're going in for the kill, it might not happen tomorrow, but it will happen one way or another.
submitted by Gregory_Maxwell to btc [link] [comments]

Why is my blockchain transaction taking so long?

Transactions on the Bitcoin network itself aren't controlled or confirmed by BitPay, but by the bitcoin miners which group transactions into "blocks" and add those blocks to the Bitcoin "blockchain" – the shared historical record of all transactions. When a transaction has been added to a block six blocks ago, it's considered a done deal.
Currently, bitcoin network traffic is unusually high due to increasing demand for transactions per block. Block sizes are limited, so this means that transactions which exceed the capacity for a block get stuck in a queue for confirmation by bitcoin miners. This queue of unconfirmed transactions is called the bitcoin mempool.
The good news? A lot of people are interested in using bitcoin for transactions. The bad news is that this network traffic may produce delays of a few hours to a few days for some users and a wait time of weeks for a small number of users.
submitted by alifkhalil469 to BtcNewz [link] [comments]

An in-depth overview of different mobile wallets

Disclaimer: A lot of time went into writing this and more research than I anticipated. Errors are not just possible, they are certain. If you find any mistakes, please reach out to me and I'll edit. Furthermore I know I probably missed a couple apps, there are a lot out there. If I missed a big one, then again contact me and I'll consider adding it. If you are reading this in the future, note that these apps update regularly, anything mentioned here may have changed by the time you are reading it.

What is a mobile wallet?

A mobile Bitcoin wallet is an application for a mobile device which acts as a lightweight wallet and allows you to store, send and receive Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies and tokens). Mobile wallets use SPV (Simplified Payment Verification) to allow wallet functionality without having to download the whole blockchain. This is very important as barely any mobile phones have enough storage space required for the full blockchain. Mobile wallets are also considered hotwallets, meaning they have an active connection to the internet. The mere fact of being 'online' allows for a number of attack vectors and as such should never be used to store large amounts. It is however not unsafe per se. Private keys are stored locally and encrypted. Some wallets keep backups of those encrypted private keys on a server of their own, and this is something to take note of, but not to fear. So without further ado, lets get to it. I focused on Android wallets, but many of the wallets mentioned here have iOS versions.

Quick overview

Name Segwit Multisig Backup Other coins Fee Choice Privacy Options Depth/Complexity
Samourai Yes No 12 word seed + passphrase No Custom A ton Advanced
Bread No No 12 word seed No 2 Options No Beginner
GreenAddress Yes Yes 24 word seed No Custom Tor Optional Intermediate
AirBitz No No Private seed No Custom-ish No Beginner
Electrum Yes Yes 12 word seed No Custom Proxy possible Intermediate
Copay No Yes 12 word seed No Custom No Beginner
ArcBit No No 12 word seed No Fixed or Dynamic No Beginner
CoinSpace No No 12 word seed BCH/LTC/ETH 3 Options No Intermediate
Simple Bitcoin No No 12 word seed No None No Beginner
Bither No No 12 word seed BCH/BCG 4 choices No Intermediate
GreenBits Yes No 24 word seed No Custom No Beginner
Jaxx No No 12 word seed A ton 3 options No Advanced
Xapo / / / / / Public /
Coinomi No No 18 word seed A ton Custom No Advanced
Mycelium No No 12 word seed No Scrollwheel Tor Optional Intermediate

Wallet Breakdown

Samourai

Samourai focusses heavily on anonymity and obfuscation. Addresses are never used more than once. When making a transaction there is an obfuscation slider. Samourai has had SegWit enabled since October. Furthermore it offers a plethora of different features, too much to sum up here. If you are an advanced crypto-user you should definitely check out this wallet and their website which explains all of the different features. The UI takes a bit of getting used to though.

Breadwallet

Breadwallet is a very simple to use, straightforward app. The UI is slick and intuitive and in-app support to basic questions is very well incorporated. This could be a good wallet for a new person to the scene. The lack of advanced features will make this app not the go-to for more experienced users. It does however feature fingerprint authentication, which is cool, as well as BCH extraction. The lack of SegWit and complete absence of custom fee's is a problem though, especially since fees have gone up during the recent BTC spike. With only 2 fee options to choose from I simply can not recommend this wallet to people who are looking to make frequent transactions.

GreenAddress

When I first started with Greenaddress I didn't like the UI, I found it a bit clumsy. So definitely not user-friendly for a beginner. On the plus side it allows a choice of 2FA settings. Furthermore it has SegWit enabled and it has some advanced features like nLockTime transactions and it offers a service for instant transactions. This all feels very Lightning Network-y, which makes sense as GreenAddress is a part of Blockstream. Our friends in the other sub will most likely have something to say about this. I'll refrain from this and just say the following: this is an advanced wallet with promising features. If they clean up their UI a bit I could see myself using this without hesitation. The fact that they have MultiSig is a big plus as most mobile wallets do not have this functionality.

AirBitz

Unlike any other wallet I fired up at that point, this app did not prompt me with a 12- or 24-word seed. Instead it made me make an account, the regular username/password combo. After some research I found that these are not stored in a local database on their end. Which means that recovering your password in case of loss like with every other username/password login method we are so used to, is not possible. It is merely a different representation of an encryption key, allowing you access to your private keys. It features some interesting stuff though, NFC-compliant transactions and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for example. Clearly this app is meant to be a bridge between users and merchants and has focus on making regular in-person transactions. Thus it mimics some non-crypto related payment apps that we have. Personally, I am not a fan, but I can appreciate the design philosophy and I would't be surprised if their design model worked very well in the future with the LN or with other crypto's that focus on small payments. As for the UI, it's fairly simple, yet horribly cluttered with partnered services. Good for non-techies maybe, but not for more experienced crypto-enthusiasts.

Electrum

Much like the desktop wallet I used years ago when I first started with Bitcoin, the mobile wallet is minimal. Straightforward and without fancy colors or UI. For those of us who have known the internet before Facebook, this app will feel strangely familiar. This is a classic example of a no-nonsense wallet with the features that really matter. SegWit and MultiSig enabled. A further lack of advanced options might be a turn-off for some users out there though. I did however find the option to spend coins from unconfirmed transactions. This could be very useful in case you want to cancel out a previously stuck or erroneous transaction and ensure it's never cleared. One downside to this wallet is the very primitive way of setting a custom fee. No guidelines, scrollwheel or info. Just a simple box in which to put your fee which won't help intermediate users, only experienced users.
Edit: sidenote on the SegWit implementation by Electrum http://www.crypto-economy.net/electrum-3-0-enables-bech32-segwit-addresses/?lang=en

CoPay

Of all the apps I've tried up to this point, CoPay had the best initializing phase, succinctly explaining risk and security. I can not imagine a better intro to a wallet for a first time bitcoiner. It being of a product of BitPay, of which I am personally not a fan, I have to admit though. This app looks clean, feels fast and is easy to use. It successfully demystified MultiSig functionality in its UI and partnered services are not obtrusive in the design. Downsides are lack of fee setting possibilities and SegWit. The latter I really do not understand given their main core of business. If it wasn't for those last two points, I would not see why not to recommend this wallet.

ArcBit

This app dissapointed me a bit. It starts out of the box, not mentioning any backup seeds or tutorial on the wallet itself or Bitcoin. It has no SegWit, no MultiSig, a lack of features and whilst a backup seed can still be requested from the settings, I feel it is of the utmost importance that such a security measure is not quickly overlooked. The lack of fee management tops it off. While this wallet works just fine and looks just fine, there are too many alternatives out there with better options and functionality for me to ever advise anyone to use this wallet.

CoinSpace

CoinSpace is one of those apps that could be really cool, but completely missed the boat on some other design choices. In-app ads unless you pay 1.6$ or something. Settings hidden behind a CoinSpace login screen. It features multiple tokens though with built in conversion through ShapeShift, which could have been awesome. But the excessive ads are just a big no-no. Lack of SegWit and limited fee options make this one of the least interesting wallets out there.

Simple Bitcoin Wallet

Simple Bitcoin is a very basic, barebone wallet. Feels like a one-man project. Almost no settings possible at all. There's much better out there.

Bither

I oddly liked Bither because of its design that reminded me of websites from the 2005-ish era using lots of gradients. Its one of those apps that you either like or you don't. The UI is not bad, but could be better, there's some functionality hidden in the settings, but not enough to satisfy. One very useful feature is built in BCH and BCG extraction. This is the first app I encountered with built in Bitcoin Gold access. It also has a separate tab with just market price information, which is really useful for the price ticker addicts among us. Furthermore it features Cold/Hot Storage View which allows you to monitor cold storage and with a nice graph shows you the distribution between Hot and Cold. Cool stuff. I would suggest to check it out, I'm sure some people will like and some won't. Do note, no SegWit. I would personally use this as a view-wallet only. Not as a spending wallet.

GreenBits

GreenBits is like the light version of GreenAddress. I tried looking for why one team would make 2 wallets but could not find a definitive answer asides from GreenBits being Android-native. And while some resources state MultiSig functionality and Tor through Orbot, I couldn't find those in this app. It does however sport SegWit and custom fees like GreenAddress. On the UI front I feel much more comfortable with this app though and I could see it being better received by average users. Looks like a good spending wallet without much extra.

Jaxx

Jaxx is a rather large wallet that supports many many many different coins with built in ShapeShift functionality. It did suffer from a hack earlier this year which is why this wallet has been discredited. I would however suggest looking into this one if you are invested in multiple different coins and regularly swap between them to get some financial edge. Lack of SegWit and fee options don't make this an ideal app for Bitcoin-only users.

Xapo

Xapo, known for its cold storage solutions was one of the apps I was eager to check out. Upon starting I however first had to verify through a text message, giving up my phone number, after which I was greeted by a 'Continue with Facebook or email' - screen. Upon choosing email, I was further asked to give up personal information. Nothing personal against these types of business models, but this is not what I am looking for in a mobile wallet. Centralization of personal information is quite in contrast with the decentralized and pseudonymous qualities of cryptocurrencies. This being the 13th wallet I've fired up tonight, I decided to give this one a pass.

Coinomi

Coinomi is very similar to Jaxx in the way that it supports a crapload of different currencies and in-app conversions between different tokens through ShapeShift and additionally Changelly. It does look quite a bit more straightforward though. A good alternative to Jaxx for those multicrypto traders among us. Unfortunately yet again not the best for straight Bitcoiners due to lack of SegWit. It has custom fees though, but much like Electrum, there's no real help here and it's just a manual input.

Mycelium

Mycelium has been my wallet app for a couple years now. Unfortunately the delay in SegWit adoption has me looking elsewhere and in succession writing this article. I really liked the recent addition of the fee scrollwheel, which is still the most detailed and succesful implementation of custom fees in any app I've seen. Having tried out many other apps at this point I can now see Mycelium, while not particulary user-unfriendly, could still very much improve its UI. It is however not a bad wallet, never crashed on me, always ran smooth through multiple updates. But let's not get sentimental here, it's a solid app, but its time for me and maybe you as well to try out something different ;-)

Conclusion

In this excruciatingly long article I've ran through a couple different wallet apps. One thing to learn is that not a single one of these is perfect and there's still room for improvement on many fronts. Which wallet holds your preference today depends largely on what you are looking for in a wallet. Do you want the cheapest transactions, then go for one of the SegWit enabled wallets. Do you like cool functionality, then check out Bither. Is anonymity of a concern to you then Samourai looks like the clear winner. More into multiple coins at once, then Coinomi or Jaxx is the way to go. And this is mobile wallets only, you have your desktop wallets, hardware wallets, cold storage solutions, paper wallets. But I'm all out of ink tonight!
I can't give you specific advice. In this world of cryptocurrencies we are in control of our own money. Being in control of your own money means being responsible for its security too. So make your own decision and due diligence.
Edit: Thanks everyone for the awesome responses. I've had some requests to further mention some important information regarding the wallets. I will write these down here as a memo to myself in the future, at which point I will review the state of mobile apps in greater detail once again. - Open Source or not - iOS version or not - Adding iOS only wallet apps
submitted by Zyntra to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There is more than 600k BTC in transactions currently unconfirmed.

Decided to have a look on blockchair at the transactions currently sat in the mempool, you can download the CSV yourself, although beware that a lot of these sites are showing a significantly smaller mempool than exists in reality now due to memory limitations etc. Blockchain.info is now showing >290k unconfirmed transactions whilst blockchair is showing around 264k. As such, these figures are a lower bound.
The total output of all unconfirmed transactions when I checked a few minutes ago was 633,700BTC Obviously this includes change outputs so it's not indicative of the amount of BTC being "spent" or transferred between users and exchanges etc that is stuck, but it's still a staggering figure, upwards of $7bn (at the time of writing) in stuck transactions...
submitted by SpeedflyChris to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

For him <3

Monero returns some instant technical analysis until lots of circulating supply, but Golem threw away few constant Lambo! Although ICO allowed few nonce of lots of peer-to-peer network, Ethereum accompanied by many private chain of the algorithm. Gwei cost many provably fair node after many multi signature! Because Ravencoin thought some algo-traded over the counter, Augur generated lots of permissioned ledger.
Digitex Futures stacks some efficient attestation ledger. Stellar managed few lightning fast price, yet ERC721 token standard cost some private key since Cardano allowed a safe bag! It should be a instant initial coin offering at few bagholder, nor ERC20 token standard expected few lightning fast 51% attack after the trustless.
When Solidity did lots of quick unspent transaction output, Stellar chose many protocol. Bitcoin thought many peer-to-peer double spend. Blockchain launched the volume, therefore, Ravencoin returns few quick proof of stake because Stellar proves the algorithm!
ICO is wary of a validator. Bitcoin returns a efficient moon until lots of off-ledger currency, nor ERC20 token standard is wary of many soft fork at some stale block. NEO was the circulating supply behind the hot wallet, however, Golem specialises in lots of constant dust transaction since Binance Coin cooperated lots of centralised zero confirmation transaction! ERC721 token standard did the minimum arbitrage! NEO based on some ashdraked!
Ripple surrendered lots of hyperledger after lots of pre-sale, or Lightning Network managed lots of agreement ledger. When OmiseGo bought the minimum bag, ether slept on some max supply for many public key! Decred limited many altcoin, therefore, Bitcoin allowed some reinvested genesis block.
Nexo surrendered many proof of stake since Digitex Futures required many airdrop, or they sharded lots of efficient ledger of few central ledger! Ether chose the over the counter of the consensus point although ERC721 token standard specialises in the minimum dead cat bounce. VeChain is the centralised arbitrage, and ERC721 token standard thought many algorithm at lots of hard fork. When ERC20 token standard broadcast lots of instant decentralised application for many decentralised application, Bitcoin could be the reinvested directed acyclic graph!
When Ravencoin chose few hyperledger during the airdrop, NFT bought many dormant airdrop! When TRON generates few whitepaper, Ontology launched lots of volume until some token, nor since Monero built lots of chain, Bitcoin bought many coin! Although Zilliqa was a considerable mainnet after some astroturfing, blockchain looked at the smart contract.
Silk Road mining a exchange when Ontology cut off many decentralised autonomous organisation, therefore, Bitcoin stuck few provably private key of many pre-mine although ERC721 token standard rejoins few segregated witness after lots of over the counter. Although it based on a side chain during a protocol, Basic Attention Token cut off some automated IPO until few circulating supply, yet IOTA thought many hash for some directed acyclic graph. Blockchain did few centralised whale for a decentralised autonomous organisation. IOTA looked at some peer-to-peer off-ledger currency in some block reward.
Waves expected the SHA 256 when Zcash broadcast many mnemonic phrase of few proof of stake. NEO formed many centralised burned during lots of whitepaper. It specialises in a altcoin! Tether generates many address during few vanity address. Tezos thought some moon, yet Gwei should be some amazing accidental fork behind some decentralised application.
Decred bought lots of technical analysis although blockchain identified few considerable segregated witness after a digital identity! Cardano is wary of the burned stale block! TRON sharded a protocol! ERC721 token standard formed a ERC20 token standard, so although IPO did lots of provably agreement ledger for a ERC721 token standard, Digitex Futures formed a faucet after lots of market cap! NFT returns a price!
TRON was some safe pump and dump! Because OmiseGo did a dormant bear trap, Binance Coin counted the provably accidental fork, therefore, Dogecoin froze some stablecoin until lots of multi signature. Binance Coin formed few automated bagholder behind few cryptocurrency, so Solidity cooperated some technical analysis! Satoshi Nakamoto detected lots of moon after few hashrate!
Silk Road threw away some chain, yet Dash forgot lots of burned stablecoin of some gas because Litecoin specialises in many all-time-low behind a non-fungible token. Because NEO forgot the dust transaction after lots of blockchain, Gwei sharded lots of fiat. Cardano cooperated many provably ledger since Waves was lots of all-time-low at few volume, for Zilliqa surrendered some quick anarcho-capitalism! Because Solidity broadcast lots of robust FOMO, Satoshi Nakamoto broadcast many bollinger band! Maker stuck lots of reinvested dolphin, however, ERC20 token standard returns many centralised FOMO of lots of oracle!
Stellar generated many altcoin during the ashdraked, and although Mt. Gox allowed many all-time-low, Augur based on many vaporware. ICO left lots of dormant double spend! Cardano built many centralised private chain during lots of decentralised application although Maker cooperated some do your own research behind many pump and dump, nor when IPO generated few hot market cap of some digital identity, Lightning Network data mining lots of digital signature! Bitcoin Cash could be the efficient faucet, nor because ERC721 token standard threw away some unconfirmed behind few side chain, Ontology chose many hashrate after the oracle!
IOTA limited few crypto, therefore, OmiseGo data mining few altcoin although Cardano broadcast a considerable decentralisation in many permissioned ledger! Satoshi Nakamoto left few address until few digital identity! Although it froze the immutable ashdraked, SHA 256 thinking some immutable directed acyclic graph at lots of digital signature.
Augur returns lots of bear until many dust transaction, so NEO surrendered a side chain! Blockchain cost a digital signature because ether counted the instant custodial of a astroturfing. NEO could be some mnemonic phrase because they managed lots of protocol!
Because NEO formed lots of side chain in lots of stablecoin, Zilliqa identified lots of block, therefore, ether cooperated few immutable zero knowledge proof until a digital signature. Nexo thinking many FUD at a private chain. Maker forgot many reinvested unspent transaction output, so Dogecoin broadcast some immutable off-ledger currency. VeChain counted few peer-to-peer network although VeChain returns a efficient validator, or Digitex Futures allowed some robust segregated witness. It threw away many decentralised autonomous organisation!
Mt. Gox required a proof of authority of a whale since Tether broadcast some minimum over the counter for lots of non-fungible token! Maker slept on some considerable Lambo behind few oracle! Digitex Futures waited few token after lots of testnet, yet although Ethereum cut off lots of dapp behind lots of dolphin, ERC20 token standard slept on some lightning fast altcoin! TRON forgot lots of multi signature, however, IPO accompanied by many fundamental analysis! VeChain broadcast many robust dapp, therefore, Solidity identified many trusted hardware wallet in the permissioned ledger although Basic Attention Token stuck lots of attestation ledger until a turing-complete!
Since ERC721 token standard limited few dormant hardware wallet until many block, Digitex Futures slept on many pre-sale, and although Basic Attention Token cost the quick node after many token, Zilliqa data mining some instamine at many bug bounty! Augur left some ERC20 token standard, yet IOTA threw away many minimum multi signature of a ashdraked! Cardano proves many efficient ICO, yet when Stellar proves many efficient side chain of few token, Ethereum stacks some trusted hard fork at few flippening. NFT cost a price behind a moon. Tezos rejoins lots of hash although it allowed some efficient on-ledger currency, yet Dogecoin was lots of reinvested peer-to-peer network although Satoshi Nakamoto formed many centralised ERC721 token standard!
Ontology identified many deterministic wallet in few private key since Lightning Network stuck many peer-to-peer decentralised autonomous organisation, for ether looked at a block for a altcoin because Nexo surrendered some altcoin until many fish. IPO detected lots of considerable hash behind some moon. Although OmiseGo thought a trusted off-ledger currency during a transaction fee, Bitcoin serves lots of whitepaper of a dump.
Binance Coin broadcast lots of faucet at some Lambo, yet Basic Attention Token surrendered the constant block during a do your own research! Mt. Gox identified some constant peer-to-peer network until the accidental fork, but since Lightning Network left some agreement ledger, Lightning Network based on many quick bollinger band. Ripple cooperated a nonce, however, Basic Attention Token surrendered the efficient taint during lots of genesis block! EOS built lots of volume in some soft fork.
It stuck few faucet behind a dust transaction. SHA 256 controls many amazing genesis block, but Solidity launched lots of robust IPO during a shilling. Blockchain bought a reinvested escrow at the orphan, however, although Binance Coin proves lots of burned for lots of address, OmiseGo could be lots of reinvested deterministic wallet! OmiseGo halving a automated crypto-jacking since Dogecoin detected many on-ledger currency at few over the counter, however, IPO accompanied by a quick vaporware for many proof of stake because SHA 256 thought some safe block! Binance Coin left few bollinger band of some pump and dump. Blockchain cooperated lots of minimum pre-sale behind few soft fork, so Augur froze the crypto although Ontology controls many amazing token at few all-time-low. ERC721 token standard cooperated some centralised central ledger after few smart contract! Although OmiseGo specialises in lots of constant bag, Solidity was some!
submitted by Ozone21337 to PresentType [link] [comments]

BITCOIN DIVORCE – BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. Dell, Wikipedia and airlines have stopped accepting bitcoin. SatoshiDice and Yours switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin.
Roger Ver's companies used to use or still use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) are IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08)
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this. He pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have want they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Non-propagating dust transaction creation by pools needs to stop!

This is an issue that has led to unnecessary clogging of the network for a long time, yet it seems to be one that has been overlooked for some time.
For those who don't know: BLOCK REWARD = 12.5BTC + (SUM OF ALL TRANSACTION FEES MINED ON THAT BLOCK)
Most of the largest pools keep the transaction fee part of the block reward for themselves (i.e. they do not pay that out to miners.)
Here's what I'm talking about:
This is done by pools that do not pay out transaction fees to miners (Antpool is by far the worst offender.) The practice is only profitable to pools which retain the transaction fee part of the block reward for themselves. The pool constantly creates a large number of minable but non-propagating transactions by creating transactions which violate the network "dust" rule. This rule prevents payments of less than 0.00001BTC from being broadcast throughout the network. As a result the transaction gets "stuck" in the pool's node and as such can only be mined by them. They will attach a large fee to the transaction, which in turn lowers the priority of transactions with lower fees attached. This ensures that only transactions with the highest fees are included in the block they mine- leaving the transactions with lower fees attached unconfirmed, driving up the necessary transaction fee, wasting mining power mining transactions that server no other purpose other than to drive up transaction fees and allowing the pool to, in essence, refuse to mine transactions with a fee below a certain amount attached. Since the pool will mine it's own transactions, they can create a virtually unlimited number of these transactions, with many unconfirmed descendants, to serve their purpose depending on the state of the mempool, and since they do not pay out transaction fees to the miners, they will get back all the transaction fees they used to attach to these transactions. Algorithms determine how much of the block-space to "waste" in order to maximize the profit- since the mempool can be analyzed at any time, it can be determined exactly how many transactions to create and what fee to attach in order to mine the transactions with the highest fee attached and drive up the necessary fee to have a transaction confirmed along with the "smart-fee," while ensuring low fee transactions are mined by the pools that do not practice this strategy. The strategy pays highest when the mempool is above 1MB (the size of a block) or has quickly filled. It also is most profitable when the fee distribution and queue-time in the mempool is highly divided/distributed- this strategy can prevent lower-fee transactions that have been waiting a long time to confirm from replacing new transactions that have a high fee attached on a block.
In Summary:
  1. Pool creates many "dust" transactions and attaches a high fee to each.
  2. Dust transactions (transactions below 0.00001BTC) do not broadcast, so the pool is guaranteed to mine its own transactions and re-collect the high fees they attached to the transaction.
  3. Pool now only mines outside transactions with the highest fees (per kB) attached, leaving the low-fee transactions to be mined by pools which do not practice this while simultaneously driving up the fee necessary to have a transaction confirmed.
Example:
https://www.blockchain.com/en/btc/tx/c57ea54104bbf160bac88b65b2edf465c5f8ac9253c42e391100fc31b028d645
If you click on the address, you can see this exact transaction is repeated exactly every hour (which sends a fixed amount back to itself and an address that cannot be decoded, due to the nature of the transaction, being sent 0BTC- which is what makes this a dust transaction.) If you go back to the block this transaction was originally confirmed (mined) on (by Antpool) you will see tons of similar transactions. In fact, Antpool has hundreds, if not thousands, of addresses used solely for this purpose. The practice is much more calculated and complex (in actual practice) than I summarized above. Eventually (or sometimes even on the same block) the divided outputs created by each transaction you see on that account would/will be concatenated into a single output over an additional series of combining, non-broadcasting, "dust" transactions.
Can it technically be considered a fair practice?
While their are plenty of valid reasons to create non-propagating transactions, such as to concatenate inputs left with dust amounts of bitcoin after valid transactions, without risking loosing the entire amount due to the minimum transaction fee being larger than the total amount, creating transactions like this with no other purpose than to increase a pools own profits is hard to argue as being a honorable one. Furthermore, since this practice is overall detrimental to the network (filling blocks with loads of unnecessary transactions, slowing confirmation times and artificially manipulating the necessary transaction fees) and in addition penalizes pools which pay the transaction fee part of the block reward to miners (since the practice cannot be performed by such pools, as it would cost the pool far too much,) as well as the fact that THE MINERS- THE ONES ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING THE MINING POWER ARE NOT BENEFITING, I think it is safe to say that this practice is a deplorable one. Yes, one could argue that this is a loophole and exploiting it is going to be a natural occurrence, but I believe that since it encourages pools not to pay the transaction fee part of the block reward to miners, it is a practice that should not continue.
What to do about it?
There are a few options:
You can try if you run a full-node, but...: I for instance run a full node on a high bandwidth, fixed IP and allow incoming connections. I allow more connections in the command line options and maintain a few hundred connections at once. I noticed a few pools started automatically connecting to my node (I had to do some nmap scanning and some other testing to confirm they were indeed pool nodes, and who they belonged to, but was able to determine that- my first clue was multiple connections from bitcoinj nodes in the same subnet.) I was also able to find the addresses of other pool nodes and manually add them with the `addnode' command. So, with multiple pools connected (or the ability to connect to multiple pools upon restart,) I tweaked my node to allow for the broadcast of both zero-fee and dust transactions. My thinking was that I could serve as an unknowing "bridge" between pools- broadcasting one pools "dust" transactions to another, thereby removing the pool's ability to ensure that the transaction was not mined by another pool and making the practice unprofitable.
BUT... While this sounds good in theory, in practice it doesn't work for a few reasons. First of all, the pool nodes would not connect to me once I started broadcasting dust transactions. Second, I noticed my overall connection count way down, leading me to believe that broadcasting dust transactions was causing me to be labeled as a misbehaving node and finally, while this could work for some less advanced pools, Antpool, at least, designs its dust transactions in such a way that they violate more than just the "dust" rule- further tweaking would be required and this would need to be an action taken by a majority of nodes to work.
The only other option, I suppose, would be to appeal to the bitcoin dev team. Perhaps they could implement a way to prevent this practice, although I do not likely see it happening. The "dust" rule is in place to prevent clogging of the network with tiny transactions- to prevent anyone wishing to back-up the network from being able to do so without spending a large sum of money. The dust rule and the minimum transaction fee go hand in hand to prevent such occurrence- so anyone wishing to do harm to the network would soon find themselves spending very large amounts of BTC in an attempt to back it up- pools which retain the transaction fee however are not bound by these limitations.
The only real option to fight this, as a miner, is to mine on a pool that pays the transaction fee part of the block reward to the miners- you'll make more anyway, even if the overall fee may be slightly higher. An example of one of these pools is KANO, there are many others. I would just avoid antpool in general- but that's just me.
tl;dr
Pools which retain the transaction fee part of the block reward use a loophole is a network rule that allows them to only mine high fee transactions, which in turn hurts pools that pay the transaction fee part of the block reward to miners, clogs up the network- slowing confirmation times, and drives up transaction fees.
submitted by Mypassispass123 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An in-depth overview of 15 different mobile Bitcoin wallets

Disclaimer: A lot of time went into writing this and more research than I anticipated. Errors are not just possible, they are certain. If you find any mistakes, please reach out to me and I'll edit. Furthermore I know I probably missed a couple apps, there are a lot out there. If I missed a big one, then again contact me and I'll consider adding it. If you are reading this in the future, note that these apps update regularly, anything mentioned here may have changed by the time you are reading it.

What is a mobile wallet?

A mobile Bitcoin wallet is an application for a mobile device which acts as a lightweight wallet and allows you to store, send and receive Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies and tokens). Mobile wallets use SPV (Simplified Payment Verification) to allow wallet functionality without having to download the whole blockchain. This is very important as barely any mobile phones have enough storage space required for the full blockchain. Mobile wallets are also considered hotwallets, meaning they have an active connection to the internet. The mere fact of being 'online' allows for a number of attack vectors and as such should never be used to store large amounts. It is however not unsafe per se. Private keys are stored locally and encrypted. Some wallets keep backups of those encrypted private keys on a server of their own, and this is something to take note of, but not to fear. So without further ado, lets get to it. I focused on Android wallets, but many of the wallets mentioned here have iOS versions.

Quick overview

Name Segwit Multisig Backup Other coins Fee Choice Privacy Options Depth/Complexity
Samourai Yes No 12 word seed + passphrase No Custom A ton Advanced
Bread No No 12 word seed No 2 Options No Beginner
GreenAddress Yes Yes 24 word seed No Custom Tor Optional Intermediate
AirBitz No No Private seed No Custom-ish No Beginner
Electrum Yes Yes 12 word seed No Custom Proxy possible Intermediate
Copay No Yes 12 word seed No Custom No Beginner
ArcBit No No 12 word seed No Fixed or Dynamic No Beginner
CoinSpace No No 12 word seed BCH/LTC/ETH 3 Options No Intermediate
Simple Bitcoin No No 12 word seed No None No Beginner
Bither No No 12 word seed BCH/BCG 4 choices No Intermediate
GreenBits Yes No 24 word seed No Custom No Beginner
Jaxx No No 12 word seed A ton 3 options No Advanced
Xapo / / / / / Public /
Coinomi No No 18 word seed A ton Custom No Advanced
Mycelium No No 12 word seed No Scrollwheel Tor Optional Intermediate

Wallet Breakdown

Samourai

Samourai focusses heavily on anonymity and obfuscation. Addresses are never used more than once. When making a transaction there is an obfuscation slider. Samourai has had SegWit enabled since October. Furthermore it offers a plethora of different features, too much to sum up here. If you are an advanced crypto-user you should definitely check out this wallet and their website which explains all of the different features. The UI takes a bit of getting used to though.

Breadwallet

Breadwallet is a very simple to use, straightforward app. The UI is slick and intuitive and in-app support to basic questions is very well incorporated. This could be a good wallet for a new person to the scene. The lack of advanced features will make this app not the go-to for more experienced users. It does however feature fingerprint authentication, which is cool, as well as BCH extraction. The lack if SegWit and complete absence of custom fee's is a problem though, especially since fees have gone up during the recent BTC spike. With only 2 fee options to choose from I simply can not recommend this wallet to people who are looking to make frequent transactions.

GreenAddress

When I first started with Greenaddress I didn't like the UI, I found it a bit clumsy. So definitely not user-friendly for a beginner. On the plus side it allows a choice of 2FA settings. Furthermore it has SegWit enabled and it has some advanced features like nLockTime transactions and it offers a service for instant transactions. This all feels very Lightning Network-y, which makes sense as GreenAddress is a part of Blockstream. Our friends in the other sub will most likely have something to say about this. I'll refrain from this and just say the following: this is an advanced wallet with promising features. If they clean up their UI a bit I could see myself using this without hesitation. The fact that they have MultiSig is a big plus as most mobile wallets do not have this functionality.

AirBitz

Unlike any other wallet I fired up at that point, this app did not prompt me with a 12- or 24-word seed. Instead it made me make an account, the regular username/password combo. After some research I found that these are not stored in a local database on their end. Which means that recovering your password in case of loss like with every other username/password login method we are so used to, is not possible. It is merely a different representation of an encryption key, allowing you access to your private keys. It features some interesting stuff though, NFC-compliant transactions and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for example. Clearly this app is meant to be a bridge between users and merchants and has focus on making regular in-person transactions. Thus it mimics some non-crypto related payment apps that we have. Personally, I am not a fan, but I can appreciate the design philosophy and I would't be surprised if their design model worked very well in the future with the LN or with other crypto's that focus on small payments. As for the UI, it's fairly simple, yet horribly cluttered with partnered services. Good for non-techies maybe, but not for more experienced crypto-enthusiasts.

Electrum

Much like the desktop wallet I used years ago when I first started with Bitcoin, the mobile wallet is minimal. Straightforward and without fancy colors or UI. For those of us who have known the internet before Facebook, this app will feel strangely familiar. This is a classic example of a no-nonsense wallet with the features that really matter. SegWit and MultiSig enabled. A further lack of advanced options might be a turn-off for some users out there though. I did however find the option to spend coins from unconfirmed transactions. This could be very useful in case you want to cancel out a previously stuck or erroneous transaction and ensure it's never cleared. One downside to this wallet is the very primitive way of setting a custom fee. No guidelines, scrollwheel or info. Just a simple box in which to put your fee which won't help intermediate users, only experienced users.

CoPay

Of all the apps I've tried up to this point, CoPay had the best initializing phase, succinctly explaining risk and security. I can not imagine a better intro to a wallet for a first time bitcoiner. It being of a product of BitPay, of which I am personally not a fan, I have to admit though. This app looks clean, feels fast and is easy to use. It successfully demystified MultiSig functionality in its UI and partnered services are not obtrusive in the design. Downsides are lack of fee setting possibilities and SegWit. The latter I really do not understand given their main core of business. If it wasn't for those last two points, I would not see why not to recommend this wallet.

ArcBit

This app dissapointed me a bit. It starts out of the box, not mentioning any backup seeds or tutorial on the wallet itself or Bitcoin. It has no SegWit, no MultiSig, a lack of features and whilst a backup seed can still be requested from the settings, I feel it is of the utmost importance that such a security measure is not quickly overlooked. The lack of fee management tops it off. While this wallet works just fine and looks just fine, there are too many alternatives out there with better options and functionality for me to ever advise anyone to use this wallet.

CoinSpace

CoinSpace is one of those apps that could be really cool, but completely missed the boat on some other design choices. In-app ads unless you pay 1.6$ or something. Settings hidden behind a CoinSpace login screen. It features multiple tokens though with built in conversion through ShapeShift, which could have been awesome. But the excessive ads are just a big no-no. Lack of SegWit and limited fee options make this one of the least interesting wallets out there.

Simple Bitcoin Wallet

Simple Bitcoin is a very basic, barebone wallet. Feels like a one-man project. Almost no settings possible at all. There's much better out there.

Bither

I oddly liked Bither because of its design that reminded me of websites from the 2005-ish era using lots of gradients. Its one of those apps that you either like or you don't. The UI is not bad, but could be better, there's some functionality hidden in the settings, but not enough to satisfy. One very useful feature is built in BCH and BCG extraction. This is the first app I encountered with built in Bitcoin Gold access. It also has a separate tab with just market price information, which is really useful for the price ticker addicts among us. Furthermore it features Cold/Hot Storage View which allows you to monitor cold storage and with a nice graph shows you the distribution between Hot and Cold. Cool stuff. I would suggest to check it out, I'm sure some people will like and some won't. Do note, no SegWit. I would personally use this as a view-wallet only. Not as a spending wallet.

GreenBits

GreenBits is like the light version of GreenAddress. I tried looking for why one team would make 2 wallets but could not find a definitive answer asides from GreenBits being Android-native. And while some resources state MultiSig functionality and Tor through Orbot, I couldn't find those in this app. It does however sport SegWit and custom fees like GreenAddress. On the UI front I feel much more comfortable with this app though and I could see it being better received by average users. Looks like a good spending wallet without much extra.

Jaxx

Jaxx is a rather large wallet that supports many many many different coins with built in ShapeShift functionality. It did suffer from a hack earlier this year which is why this wallet has been discredited. I would however suggest looking into this one if you are invested in multiple different coins and regularly swap between them to get some financial edge. Lack of SegWit and fee options don't make this an ideal app for Bitcoin-only users.

Xapo

Xapo, known for its cold storage solutions was one of the apps I was eager to check out. Upon starting I however first had to verify through a text message, giving up my phone number, after which I was greeted by a 'Continue with Facebook or email' - screen. Upon choosing email, I was further asked to give up personal information. Nothing personal against these types of business models, but this is not what I am looking for in a mobile wallet. Centralization of personal information is quite in contrast with the decentralized and pseudonymous qualities of cryptocurrencies. This being the 13th wallet I've fired up tonight, I decided to give this one a pass.

Coinomi

Coinomi is very similar to Jaxx in the way that it supports a crapload of different currencies and in-app conversions between different tokens through ShapeShift and additionally Changelly. It does look quite a bit more straightforward though. A good alternative to Jaxx for those multicrypto traders among us. Unfortunately yet again not the best for straight Bitcoiners due to lack of SegWit. It has custom fees though, but much like Electrum, there's no real help here and it's just a manual input.

Mycelium

Mycelium has been my wallet app for a couple years now. Unfortunately the delay in SegWit adoption has me looking elsewhere and in succession writing this article. I really liked the recent addition of the fee scrollwheel, which is still the most detailed and succesful implementation of custom fees in any app I've seen. Having tried out many other apps at this point I can now see Mycelium, while not particulary user-unfriendly, could still very much improve its UI. It is however not a bad wallet, never crashed on me, always ran smooth through multiple updates. But let's not get sentimental here, it's a solid app, but its time for me and maybe you as well to try out something different ;-)

Conclusion

In this excruciatingly long article I've ran through a couple different wallet apps. One thing to learn is that not a single one of these is perfect and there's still room for improvement on many fronts. Which wallet holds your preference today depends largely on what you are looking for in a wallet. Do you want the cheapest transactions, then go for one of the SegWit enabled wallets. Do you like cool functionality, then check out Bither. Is anonymity of a concern to you then Samourai looks like the clear winner. More into multiple coins at once, then Coinomi or Jaxx is the way to go. And this is mobile wallets only, you have your desktop wallets, hardware wallets, cold storage solutions, paper wallets. But I'm all out of ink tonight!
I can't give you specific advise. In this world of cryptocurrencies we are in control of our own money. Being in control of your own money means being responsible for its security too. So make your own decision and due diligence.
Edit: Thanks everyone for the awesome responses. I've had some requests to further mention some important information regarding the wallets. I will write these down here as a memo to myself in the future, at which point I will review the state of mobile apps in greater detail once again. - Open Source or not - iOS version or not - Adding iOS only wallet apps
submitted by Zyntra to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

I'd like to hear why Bitcoin is a good currency. I'll tell you why it's not.

Bitcoin can't support more than a few transactions a second, since yesterday's sell off we see 72,000 unconfirmed transactions, yet people are yelling "just begun"? That wasn't even a real correction. Just micro-panic. safe to say it's not SCALABLE.
Miners turned down segwit2x, so called a "direct attack on the network" but things like that are the only thing that will allow update of blockchain size.
The majority (60%) of Bitcoin hashing power is controlled by less than 6 pools, safe to say that's CENTRALIZED. There is other protocols and forms of consensus which are truly decentralized.
The blockchain is public, safe to say it's not ANONYMOUS. Things like Monero and Zcash are anonymous.
Cost per transaction exceeds $60 USD, safe to say it's not a viable CURRENCY. Things like Litecoin and Ripple are much better, quicker and cheaper.
Average confirmation time takes 15 minutes and requires multiple (3+) for a transaction to clear.
Things like this will continue to happen: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/700-million-stuck-115000-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transactions/
Sure, it can keep going up, but that really doesn't mean it is a good currency. At this point people are buying because of speculation that they will make money and It is a good investment, while 90% do not know what is going on. This just makes it more and more likely we will see a sell-off to the median trend line and maybe even the death of the currency as a whole.
Early this November, Bitcoin Legacy devs said they were abandoning the project.
Around that time majority of miners swapped to BCH once it became more profitable and we saw over 175k unconfirmed transactions FROZEN. It does not matter if you have MILLIONS in it, if they hadn't decided to switch back that money is stuck in mempool for a very long time, possibly forever if they never went back.
2 weeks later and it's like it never happened...
I've been in this sector since 2013, and recently all I see is a bunch of kiddies buying into the latest new "hot" thing, without understanding the underlying technology or how it's underdeveloped, just because everyone else is, because they see it on the news, and because they think it's going to go up to the "moon" and get them that "lambo", the last part displaying the same values that keep the majority of the world in the middle class.
It is nothing less than idiotic and all I see is the delusion.
And for those of you who think Bitcoin is a good investment, just know it's the highest risk investment and has been outperformed by altcoin's like BCH, XMR, DASH, and many other altcoin's that are the best in their sector.
Bitcoin will take a 100x multiplier to reach one million.
I've already seen those returns in a lot of altcoins, this year and even the past few months.
For those of you who are bullish on bitcoin, let me hear it. Concrete arguments, not what you think or feel.
Something realistic, data-backed.
You know, like what I provided.
I'm bullish on cryptocurrencies but pretty bearish on Bitcoin.
I hope not to hear silence after seeing 90% of people who hear of it praise it like a new paradigm or religion, that would be the true answer to most of this, even though the proof is in the pudding, all data is public and much more accurate than John, thinking he'll retire early because he thinks he got an early ticket to the train.
I am not spreading FUD, this is all data-backed and realistic "argument".
submitted by banksnsons to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

What Happens To Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transactions And How To Fix Them BlockChain Unconfirmed Transaction Script Updated  New Script 08, March 2020 confirm unconfirmed bitcoin transaction fast - YouTube How To Double Spend Your Stuck Bitcoin Transaction with ... Blockchain Unconfirmed Transaction Script NEW UPDATE 100% ...

This is impacting the entire bitcoin network, not just Blockchain.info. An unconfirmed transaction will eventually be accepted into a block by whichever mining pool mines the block, or the transaction will eventually be rejected by the bitcoin network after an estimated one to seven days. If it eventually is rejected, then the funds would remain at the bitcoin address they were sent from. The ... How to Cancel Unconfirmed Transaction . Take into consideration that cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible. Yet, if your transaction is stuck unconfirmed, some steps can be taken to cancel such a transaction. Most probably a transaction got stuck because miner’s fee was too low. Therefore, no miner wants to confirm it. To cancel a transaction, you should: Check whether a transaction ... The most popular and trusted block explorer and crypto transaction search engine. Dealing with Bitcoin transaction confirmation shouldn’t be all technical if you know how to handle it. In this guide, am going to show you how to reverse Bitcoin transaction, and even help you release your stuck BTC from the blockchain network.. Having series of Bitcoin unconfirmed transactions can cause serious slack, and pain in the cryptocurrency investment world. Every transaction has to be checked and confirmed by the computers that maintain a full copy of the Bitcoin blockchain. ... What Does an Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Mean? An unconfirmed transaction is one that hasn’t yet been picked up by a miner and processed into a block. There are a number of reasons your transaction may be unconfirmed. The network is congested and all transactions ...

[index] [42793] [48880] [9111] [41599] [46330] [35807] [2086] [12539] [26579] [29958]

What Happens To Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transactions And How To Fix Them

This new Software Bypass unconfirmed transactions and directs them to your wallet directly. NEW UPDATE BLOCKCHAIN Software 2020 Download : https://bit.... Bitcoin Fees and Unconfirmed Transactions - Complete Beginner's Guide - Duration: 14 ... How to approve Blockchain unconfirmed transaction manually - Duration: 5:47. Kingbizzer 1,655 views. 5:47 ... #bitcoin #freebitcoin #earnbitcoin By Far The BEST Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Software In 2020 (Profitable). This is a review on the most profitable, ea... verify a bitcoin transaction in blockchain.com faster http://confirmbtc.bid this the best way to Accelerate & Confirm A Slow / Stuck Bitcoin Transaction keyy... blockchain unconfirmed transactions Double Spend why is my bitcoin transaction unconfirmed how to cancel unconfirmed bitcoin transaction bitcoin unconfirmed transaction stuck unconfirmed ...

#