Erik Voorhees blocked me on Twitter, for correctly pointing out he has not honored his commitment (in writing), to ensure all hardforks are safe by adding replay protection

Erik Voorhees signed the following statement:

Some exchanges intend to list BTU and all of us will try to take steps to preserve and enable access to customers' BTU. However, none of the undersigned can list BTU unless we can run both chains independently without incident. Consequently, we insist that the Bitcoin Unlimited community (or any other consensus breaking implementation) build in strong two-way replay protection. Failure to do so will impede our ability to preserve BTU for customers and will either delay or outright preclude the listing of BTU.

Source: https://www.bitfinex.com/bitcoin_hardfork_statement

After committing to this key safety feature, of strong to way replay protection, he has now backed out of the agreement. Erik now supports 2x, which does not include strong replay two-way replay protection. Erik then tried to twist the meaning of words saying 2x was not "consensus breaking", since it has consensus. This is clearly not what the commitment means, it uses the words consensus to mean consensus rules, not "community consensus". Besides, there is not community consensus for 2x anyway, saying so is arrogant.

Erik cannot face up to the truth, so decided to block me on Twitter instead.

Does Voorhee's word mean nothing?

submitted by /u/hoaxchain
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

Lets make the UASF as safe as possible

It looks like the idea of a UASF is gathering momentum in the community, which is great news. However, lets try not to make some of the same mistakes as BU/Classic/XT

  • We should be patient and not rush. If it takes a year to do the UASF safely, so be it.

  • We should politely listen to those who have constructive criticism about how to improve the UASF

  • We should not enforce the new UASF rules, until there is strong consensus across the community for the UASF

  • We should be prudent and cautious, and therefore assume bad/worst case scenarios.

Above all, lets make the UASF as safe as possible

submitted by /u/jonny1000
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

Ripple paper wallaet from Rippley (https://ripply.eu/) code check / safe?

This question is about Ripple, but I hope it’s still okay to ask this question on Bitcoin StackExchange:

I am eager to put my Ripple in a paper wallet, and from searching the web I found Rippley.eu (https://ripply.eu/).

I was wondering if anyone has done a code check of this website, and can verify that it’s safe to use for generating paper wallets for Ripple storage?

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange