| submitted by /u/DesignerAccount
Financial services giant UBS has no plans to get involved with bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, according to one of its senior executives.
Google Alert – bitcoin
(He first sent this article https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2, then followed up with this reply when someone told him he had no idea what he just read)
"There was a big scaling debate and in the end there were two sides. Those that wanted to scale using bigger blocksize (short term solution that doesn't work long term and also causes more centralization) vs those who wanted to scale using changes in the code to make the network more efficient aka SEGWIT+second layer scaling solutions (bitcoin becomes massive settlement layer, and second layer solutions can take care of verifying your $ 3.25 coffee payment).
On the big block side you had (most) miners because they were only able to see the short term benefits of increased blocksize and they do not care about network centralization. Also, a chinese miner controlling a sizeable chunk of the network's hashrate had access to (and was in the process of patenting) this technology called ASICBOOST which is an exploit in bitcoin code that allows you to "cheat" and get extra hashing power out of your miners. Essentially they had an unfair advantage and the KEY is that the segwit upgrade fixes this exploit. Alongside these miners you had a couple of misguided (but incredibly wealthy because of early adoption) individuals who either have a reason to see bitcoin fail (like they are heavily invested in altcoins now) or they are too pigheaded to back down when wrong (or some of them I'm sure are not actually intelligent enough to understand they are wrong).
On the Segwit side you had all the core developers (the guys who worked side by side with satoshi to build all this and have been contributing to the code for years every day), the majority of the userbase, AND the vast majority of bitcoin companies. The two sides were basically arguing over who had control over bitcoin – was it the miners, or was it the users? Was it those who chose which software to run (users) or was it those who verified transactions for that software (miners)? (The answer as you will see shortly is Users). So basically these miners were stalling the upgrade because it would mean the end of their unfair (AND patented) advantage. This massive stalemate in the debate caused a community led uprising known as the User Activated Soft Fork movement (UASF). These guys basically said "We're switching our nodes to Segwit software starting Aug 1 and we will be rejecting all mined blocks that do not comply with the new code". This forced the miners' hand as they realized they would either be forked off the network or have to go along with the new upgrade to make sure everything continued to go smoothly (including their profits).
The movement gained enough support to freak out some big money bitcoin CEOs who got together in a room with the miners and made a deal behind closed doors known as the New York Agreement (NYA). This is where Segwit2x was born. The key to note here is that not a single core dev was invited to this meeting (in fact, not a single competent dev in general was invited). The terms of the deal were: You guys agree to implement Segwit now, and then we'll agree to an increase in block size later (November). Deal was made and obviously the majority of the user community was in an uproar because bitcoiners hate closed door deals (and they should for good reason).
That being said, it got Segwit activated because it gave miners an easy way to safe face and go with segwit and the community instead of seeing their profits get wrecked by a messy chainsplit. However, do you remember that sneaky miner who had patented the ASICBOOST technology? Well he was part of the NYA and he decided to fork off anyway and create Bitcoin Cash. So stop right here and realize that the only reason we have bitcoin cash is so that some miner with a ton of hashing power could keep his unfair advantage over the network (he stills mainly mines bitcoin by the way because he would go out of business if he switched entirely to bitcoin cash). Also at this point, technically the NYA was broken because the whole point of it was to avoid a chainsplit and go with segwit followed by a block size increase whereas bitcoin cash was a clear chainsplit.
So for a few months everything was ok because we had Segwit, core devs were still with us, and (supposedly) anyone who wanted bigger blocks had forked off to bitcoin cash right? Wrong. See it turns out that those guys who made that backroom deal with the miners also had their own interests which involve removing the current core developers from their (imagined) seat of power. It is classic old school business politics – they don't care that core the devs are based around principles of meritocracy and peer review. They just want to have more of a say in the direction bitcoin takes. At this point, you might be thinking, "Ok but its fair for companies who use a product to have a say in its development, right?" NO. Not when the "product" at stake is meant to be an incredibly secure, incorruptible ledger that can hold trillions of dollars in wealth and still be hosted online accross the world.
The fact is that no one understands the code better than the core developers and no one has more of an interest in seeing bitcoin stay decentralized and secure than these guys do. These guys literally cum buckets everyday to how much they love coding bitcoin. If Satoshi is Cypher Jesus then these guys are his Apostles. And on the other hand you have some severely misguided corporate buffoons who think they have the knowledge to negotiate a compromise with a group who has nothing but short term profit in their sights. And when the core developers are like "wtf dude?" and the community stands behind them, then these guys resort to essentially trying to kick core out of bitcoin by starting a new chain. A new chain which was based on a compromise that no one wants or needs anymore. And the excuse these CEO's are hiding behind is "We don't want to go back on our word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
ur word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
Now we come to the current situation where there are basically 4 sides
- Core developers, and those supporting them
- The (remaining) signers of the NYA and those supporting Segwit2x
- Malicious third parties who just want to see bitcoin fail (invested in altcoins/bitcoin cash or they are the Joker and just want to see shit burn)
- Innocent bystanders
The core developers are continuing to code and improve bitcoin and they are working on second layer solutions. They haven't stopped development and have actually made a TON of beneficial changes to the code since the Segwit upgrade allowed them to. Being non-political or atleast being shit politicians, these guys do not know how to handle themselves with other people and either don't speak much or come off as pretentious d*bags (trust me I used to hate them before I smartened up).
The remaining NYA signers. I say remaining because alot of companies left when they saw the massive backlash from the community. The only signers left are miners and then a group of around 30 companies which all have ties to Barry Silbert's holding company Digital Currency Group and suprise surprise who do you think got that NYA meeting together in the first place? Silly Silbert indeed. He's basically trying to do a sort of corporate take over of bitcoin where he decides who is writing the code and how they write it. Oh also I should note here that these guys have 1 developer working on the Segwit2x code. Yes 1, Jeff Garzik. Coding ability? Mediocre at best. All he did was copy and paste the entire bitcoin core code (because its open source) and changed the one little value that dictates block size. He changed a 1 to a 2 haha! And when he tried to make other changes he made critical mistakes that had to be fixed by CORE DEVELOPERS hahahaha! So how the f* does that even compare to an army of geeks who have been coding bitcoin for years and coding in general for decades who are all constantly trying to find mistakes in each others' work. SO people supporting Segwit2x are either severely misguided, hate core devs, or don't have all the information to make an informed decision.
Now the malicious actors. These are people who have a vested interest in seeing bitcoin crumble. I'm talking about big altcoin investors and bitcoin cash supporters (yes the guys who have ASICBOOST and want are the reason for this whole mess in the first place). And Segwit2x has presented them with a beautiful vector of attack. Divide and conquer. Right? And whereas with bitcoin cash there was replay protection (meaning the split was pretty clean and bitcoin was largely unaffected) this time they haven't got any planned – so should things go through as planned, things could get messy.
Then you have all those innocent bystanders who don't really know what to think anymore. Things have gotten so convoluted and complicated that it is hard to follow who wants what anymore. These are the people who will get the most fucked by something like Segwit2x because they won't understand the risks as it is happening and they won't have the knowledge to know which wallets to support. Imagine Segwit2x happens and one wallet sticks with the core version of bitcoin and the other wallet supports the segwit2x version but they both just say "Bitcoin".
That is why people are soooooooooooooo strongly opposed to Segwit2x more than anything. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hostile takeover attempt. And at this point that should be more than clear because why else would you still support the compromise made with miners who broke the compromise by creating bitcoin cash? No one wanted Segwit2x in the first place. People wanted bigger blocks, or segwit, not both. Segwit2x was never a faction in the debate. It was a faction that was spawned by those who created the NYA because they saw an opportunity take control of the software development from a group of developers who have been working on it for years and who strongly oppose corporate interests getting involved in bitcoin development."
(I will name and shame the main malicious\misguided actors and add details based on personal discussion with him and add articles for further reading)
legit wants btc to succeed but he is also a corporate fool: used to be an investment banker and doesn't know dick about coding
hates core developers because they are pro decentralization over ease of use for businesses
similar situation as Barry Sillbert
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/72x8m6/an_open_letter_to_erik_voorhees/ (check out the post and the critiques in the comments)
already talked about in the post
former "btc jesus", early adopter, hardcore libertarian
got into altcoins and now became "btc antichrist". uses wealth and power to try and ruin btc whenever he can
always came across as a "huge fake pussy" even before he revealed himself to be a bitcoin basher
malicious actor, "fraud"
Jihan Wu (the miner mentioned) – only wants more money and power
controls shitload of hashing power, got all sorts of alternate agendas (conspiracy theory he is aligned with the Chinese government\subsidized by them)
tried to exploit ASICBOOST to get unfair advantage and dominate hashrate even harder
there you guys have it, a comprehensive rundown of bitcoin politics from the point of view of someone who supports the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto to the core. I hope it informs those of you who got confused by the FUD.
Bitcoin belongs to the community, always and forever
When you make a demand, and not only is every part of your demand met, but even more is given, that is the ultimate success. BIP148 advocates demanded that miners signal segwit unanimously by Aug 1. With the activation of BIP91, that goal appears to be imminent. As of writing this, all pools appear to be signalling.
First, I would like to thank /u/shaolinfry for his inspiration in the formalization of UASF and BIP148. Without him, we wouldn't be here.
I would like to thank Charlie Lee for getting the ball moving on Litecoin. Seeing the power of a UASF in action gave a lot of courage to the rest of us.
I'd like to thank Samson Mow for his hat campaign (and a hat)! These hats grew larger than life and became a symbol of a movement.
I wanted to give a special thanks to /u/luke-jr for being such a strong advocate and making such a convincing case for BIP148. I was ready to give up until I was inspired by Luke and became more inspired than ever in this fight.
I'd like to thank /u/lightsword for getting BIP91 into btc1. Without his efforts, btc1 would never have been able to activate SegWit.
Lastly, I'd like to support all the users who have been supportive and advocates for BIP148. You did this. Without help from Core (in fact, even many members of Core battling us), without the help of mining pools, you forced the miners hands, forced the NYA to comply with BIP148. Without such strong activism, BIP148 would have been ignored.
The story of SegWit will no doubt be twisted by those seeking glory. We all know the truth. We all know that the entire reason for BIP91 in btc1 was due to BIP148's threat. They will give a few miners a way to save face while the other miners will simply run a patched Bitcoin Core. We got everything we wanted.
I've seen a few /r/btc sockpuppets also trying to claim victory, claiming they fired Core. If anything, the success of BIP148 shows that Core is not in charge and the community is. No one can fire volunteers. Their dishonest claim of victory is apparent – they have gotten NOTHING out of this. They opposed SegWit, yet SegWit is inevitable. They wanted a hard fork, and the hard fork can be safely ignored. They wanted larger blocks, and they are getting the SegWit compromise of using block weight. The only thing they got was a new client (of which there already were dozens) that will likely be abandoned soon. There are no competent developers (other than Hilliard, who was simply getting BIP91 in) working on the project. They have little understanding of how Bitcoin works and even required being bailed out by Core a few times to even get something functional. The only thing they got was a miner commitment to hard fork (miners have done this before, yet I see no hard fork),and a few businesses saying they will hard fork. Even if there was a hard fork, its far from what they actually want – they claim 2MB blocks are too small anyway..
But we must stay vigilant. They will try to spin this as a mandate for a hard fork. We must be prepared to ignore it. The good news is, no one can force you to support a hard fork. So celebrate, but make sure to share the truth. They will claim victory, and claim they are in charge now, but in reality, we all know who is – you are. Don't give that up.
I am exploring a transaction and if would like to know when was the money created, I guess I would end up with a lot of coinable transactions. For a certain transaction I could explore the previous transactions successively until I found the coinbases. But I imagine this would be a very laborious job that could take a lot of resources. Just like blockchains.info trees ( https://blockchain.info/tree/59587897) but expanding the tree till the coinbase transactions
In the other hand I guess nodes when verifying a transaction do something very similar, don’t they? How could I create this list of coinable transactions that original the bitcoins involved in a particular transaction?
There are many different reasons as to why people get attracted to Bitcoin. The possibility for significant financial gain in the long is one of them, …
Google Alert – bitcoin