Friday, 6 December 2019

History Lesson: Failed MIT ChainAnchor scheme to KYC every BTC transaction (2016)

I've been reading up on Peter Todd's archives, I found this gem:

https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitcoin

TL;DR Bribe miners to only mine transactions which contain a backdoored cryptographic signature linking it to a real identity.

It's amazing to think about how much money and resources are being poured into sabotaging cryptocurrency every day. The ChainAnchor scheme never worked out, but the concepts really aren't that far-out. I wonder how much money Epstein funneled into the project?

submitted by /u/wtfCraigwtf
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e6wc41/history_lesson_failed_mit_chainanchor_scheme_to/

I'm noticing an increased tendency to tribalism and I'm not happy about it.

Unfortunately I don't have the time these days for a more lengthly post about this topic. I want to share my concerns about the way I have been perceiving this subs community though this year. I am convinced that this behaviour has been partly been spread by a small group of user of this sub, and partly been triggered by users that follow other forks of Bitcoin.

It doesn't matter though who is triggering this behaviour, it is important how the community acts on and handles it. I for my part have been feeling irrititated at first, but since it hasn't stopped but increased, I am starting to get annoyed by it.

As I mentioned, no time to give this a longer explanation, I just want to share my impressions and make you aware of them.

I noticed a change in the way social attacks in this sub are being performed this year. 2017 the attacks were based on technical discussions, the whitepaper or satoshis words being interpreted in absurd ways, and users being insulted as too dumb to understand the technical side of Bitcoin. That was the trigger for me to get into reddit actively. After having followed Bitcoin since 2011 I could correct a few things about what was spread here.

In 2018 that attack vector ebbed down and was taken over by attempts to cause a drift between the dev groups various proposals and each improvement that was to be implemented, like the heated DAA or CTOR debates.

With the split off of BSV a more social approach started to get a hold. We are back at discrediting single actors, like it was and is still being done in the /bitcoin sub. The amount of personal attacks against users has been getting out of hand in 2019.

I also noticed some sort of campaign a few months back, directed against BitcoinABCs lead dev. Lots of criticial posts against Amaury in person. That has been dialed down lately and been replaced by a campaign against BU developers. Again, this criticism is not about technical achievements, but focused on personal discrediting the developers and trying to make the community mistrust the "true intentions" of those persons.

The result is more tribalism, less technical discussions. If Amaury posts something in /bitcoin, he is bad. If Peter Rizun or Andrew Stone don't condemn BSV, they must be double agents for them.

Some of you are being played, and I think you don't even notice it because you are so busy defending this sub against all this bullshit. The attacks against this community are getting psychological again because technical arguments don't work.

I really have to go now, so I am just going to finish this thought with this warning:

It turns out that there is now three forks of Bitcoin and they are all going to survive. One has small blocks, one has big blocks and one, after some struggle and by giving up on decentralization, managed to write even bigger blocks. And surprise, the guys who have been focused on making Bitcoin scale to gigablocks for years, are not condemning the fork that finally managed to write the biggest blocks ever seen on any fork of Bitcoin.

Is the answer to that really to throw that dev team out? Because they don't hate BSV? Step in front of a mirror and listen to yourself. This is exactly the psychological trick that created the btc maximalists. You are being bombarded with FUD and social attacks until you become BCH maximalists as a result. You are being played and I want to inform you all that I am not going to become that kind of user that I left behind in /bitcoin after the fork.

submitted by /u/grmpfpff
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e6w3o5/im_noticing_an_increased_tendency_to_tribalism/

How to judge whether a currency is worth investing? Some people generally think that the higher the price is, the more worthwhile it is to invest. Is that right?

How to judge whether a currency is worth investing? Some people generally think that the higher the price is, the more worthwhile it is to invest. Is that right? submitted by /u/Emma5201
[link] [comments]


source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e6w0dh/how_to_judge_whether_a_currency_is_worth/

Bitcoin the true unicorn of the decade - The Cryptonomist

Bitcoin the true unicorn of the decade - The Cryptonomist submitted by /u/AlanOne89
[link] [comments]


SLIP39 web tool for mnemonic shares

SLIP39 has been around for a while. I built a web tool to play around with it.

Have a go - https://iancoleman.io/slip39/

Source code here - https://github.com/iancoleman/slip39

Still early days, some work to do - see https://github.com/iancoleman/slip39/issues

Feedback / issues / feature requests most welcome.

Thanks to ilap on github for the slip39-js library.

submitted by /u/iancoleman
[link] [comments]

How would BCH respond to congestion?

I've been pondering the fact that Nano (which promotes itself as "feeless") has no built-in mechanism for allocating tx bandwidth in the event of congestion.

BCH has this in the form of miner fees, but it raises a question for me. Given the emphasis on zero-conf payments and the absence of any explicit replace-by-fee mechanism, what would actually happen in the event that the BCH chain became congested?

Obviously we would try to increase the block size and add capacity before the congestion hit, but as Peter Rizen pointed out, there are physical constraints on bandwidth available for block propagation. Capacity can never be infinite, so a market of fees bidding for scarce block space is always a possibility, since miners will self-impose a maximum block size that they will try to mine, lest they increase their rate of orphaned blocks.

So then, in the event of congestion, how are BCH miners expected to interact with the fee market, since there is no explicit replace-by-fee?

submitted by /u/fatalglory
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e6uyj6/how_would_bch_respond_to_congestion/

I will become the first Bitcoin Cash troubadour. Broadcasting my signal from IP to IP, echoing the glorious tales of cryptocurrency. Heroes and villains, I will make music about all of them.

I will become the first Bitcoin Cash troubadour. Broadcasting my signal from IP to IP, echoing the glorious tales of cryptocurrency. Heroes and villains, I will make music about all of them. submitted by /u/Kain_niaK
[link] [comments]


source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e6ux85/i_will_become_the_first_bitcoin_cash_troubadour/