Bitcoin’s Long-Term Viability Threatened by Block Size
Bitcoin’s Long-Term Viability Threatened by Block Size
Video - Bitcoin Q and A Scaling and the Block Size Debate
Third Anniversary of Bitcoin Cash Highlights a Myriad of
Third Anniversary of Bitcoin Cash Highlights a Myriad of
The Bitcoin Block Size Debate is Quite a 'Devil in the
What is a Bitcoin Fork?
In early 2009, the mysterious cryptocurrency developer working under the alias Satoshi Nakamoto released the first software program that implemented the digital currency bitcoin. Many of hese crypto make use of aspects that were already inherent in Satoshi's initial program and concept. Others take the bitcoin model and adapt or attempt to improve upon it. In some cases, bitcoin has spawned variations which are based on the same underlying concept and program but which are distinct from the original. It is through this forking process that various digital currencies with names similar to bitcoin have come to be: bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, and others. For the casual cryptocurrency investor, it can be difficult to tell the difference between these cryptocurrencies and to map the various forks onto a timeline. Below, we'll walk through many of the most important forks to the bitcoin blockchain over the past several years.
Hard Forks Hard forks are new versions of Bitcoin that are completely split from the original version. There are no transactions or communications between the two types of Bitcoin after a hard fork. They are separate from each other and the change is permanent. What this means is that if you are running the older Bitcoin software you will no longer be able to interact with users who upgraded to the newer software and vice versa. This is basically creating two types of currency, but in this case the currency is not interchangeable. You can think of forks like organizational splits, with one part of a company moving in one direction and another part of the company moving in another direction. That’s exactly what happened with Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold. These are all separate cryptocurrencies within the Bitcoin family and all operate independently with different rules. They are all still cryptocurrency, but are not the same as the original Bitcoin. The two biggest Bitcoin hard forks are Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold, although there are others as well. The different hard forks of Bitcoin have wildly varied pricing and different goals.
The Bitcoin Gold Bitcoin Gold is a different hard fork that occurred in October 2017 with the goal of making Bitcoin mining a more equitable process that only requires basic equipment for mining. It’s mined on standard graphics processing units instead of specific hardware developed exclusively for the mining of which are more expensive, limiting its availability to a few big players. One unique feature of the Bitcoin gold hard fork was a "post-mine," a process by which the development team mined 100,000 coins after the fork had taken place. Many of these coins were placed into a special "endowment," and developers have indicated that this endowment will be used to grow and finance the bitcoin gold ecosystem, with a portion of those coins being set aside as payment for developers as well. Bitcoin Classic When bitcoin XT declined, some community members still wanted block sizes to increase. In response, a group of developers launched Bitcoin Classic in early 2016. Unlike XT, which proposed increasing the block size to 8 megabytes, Classic intended to increase it to only 2 megabytes. The project also still exists today, with some developers strongly supporting Bitcoin Classic. Nonetheless, the larger crypto community seems to have generally moved on to other options. Bitcoin Unlimited Bitcoin Unlimited remains something of an enigma some two years after its release. The project's developers released code but did not specify which type of fork it would require. Bitcoin Unlimited set itself apart by allowing miners to decide on the size of their blocks, with nodes and miners limiting the size of blocks they accept, up to 16 megabytes. Bitcoin Cash In response to SegWit, some bitcoin developers and users decided to initiate a hard fork in order to avoid the protocol updates it brought about. Bitcoin cash was the result of this hard fork. It split off from the main blockchain in August 2017, when bitcoin cash wallets rejected bitcoin transactions and blocks. As of this writing, it is the fourth-largest digital currency by market cap, owing in part to the backing of many prominent figures in the cryptocurrency community and many popular exchanges. Bitcoin cash allows blocks of 8 megabytes and did not adopt the SegWit protocol.
In the wake of a recent network upgrade, a number of nodes have been separated from the bitcoin SV blockchain, a development that highlights why “hard forks” have long been the subject of passionate infighting among cryptocurrency developers. According to block explorer Blockchair, roughly 20 percent of BSV nodes are still running an older version of the software. It’s unclear why these nodes have failed to upgrade. It could because they didn’t know they simply didn’t get the memo, they forgot they were running an older version or their operators simply didn’t agree with the changes in the hard fork and opted to protest.
Bitcoin SV, a cryptocurrency not to be confused with bitcoin, is the brainchild of entrepreneur Craig Wright, who maintains that he created bitcoin. Wright is also currently embroiled in a lawsuit in the US that centers in part around the question of his claims to the Satoshi Nakamoto mantle. To oversimplify a complex debate, some argue hard forks are a clean upgrading mechanism for enhancing blockchains with new features, while detractors argue that hard forks can only be executed successfully by more centralized blockchains. The main cause of the problems with the large 210 MB block was not necessarily the large size, as bitcoin SV had other large blocks in the past, but that it contained a lot of transactions, which used a lot of memory to validate. Critics see this as another sign of centralization of the system because less nodes are having no trouble with blocks. But those in the bitcoin SV community don’t see this is a problem. Bigger blocks have had an impact on bitcoin SV in other ways as well. Our new instance will cost thousands of dollars per month to operate. As blocks continue to get larger and we have to upgrade the instance many times, this cost will balloon. https://preview.redd.it/nf9x682ta8w31.jpg?width=796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd53fbd19ef86139f4792dec8920e2c80336a2d1
The concept of forks and the technology involved is extremely complex, but the easiest way to think about a Bitcoin fork is that it introduces a new set of rules for Bitcoin to follow. Because a new rule is introduced Bitcoin can choose to follow one set of rules or another set of rules, similar to a “fork in the road”. These forks allow for different buying opportunities. There are many different forks that serve different purposes. In this article you’ll learn about Bitcoin forks, specifically what “hard forks” are and what they mean for investors.
"Bitcoin is not something you build companies on top of. Bitcoin is something you build economies on top of" - Andreas Antonopolous
Transcribed by me from episode #385 of Let's Talk Bitcoin Tweetstorm of the highlights: https://twitter.com/Sesame4Bitcoins/status/1087970527887667200 On the topic of different blockchains: Jonathan Mohan: One of my favourite people to talk to about this is Joey from Augur because he tried to build Augur on top of Bitcoin. They [Bitcoin community] made him feel like he was the dick for even asking, that he was wasting their time. It was just a very toxic experience of trying to work with that community those developers who try to build on top of Bitcoin. He would turn to Ethereum and say, “hey, there's this bug I have that Ethereum can't handle,” and then a week later Vitalik would just update the Ethereum protocol. Andreas Antonopolous: I think that's a perfect demonstration of not just the difference in philosophy but more importantly the difference in application space. The reason Bitcoin is, and has been, and continues to be conservatively developed is because its area of specialization is super robust, super secure, super deterministic, sound money, and operating in highly adversarial environments where you can't expect the goodwill and cooperation of anyone. Not the hardware vendors, not the miners, not world's governments, not institutions, and in that environment it serves some very important needs that don't exist in the world today. To be truly neutral, truly sound global money, it has to do those things, and that means you can't have the kind of flexibility where one person decides let's add something to the protocol without very carefully thinking about all of the implications that has down the road - Bitcoin has specialized in that domain. It's why even though I believe we'll have a proliferation of different currencies in the long run, none of those will be able to effectively compete for the one application of super secure robust sound money that survives adversarial environments. And for exactly that reason Ethereum, can't do that, will never do that. In fact, if it tries to do [sound money] it would actually destroy its other benefits (flexibility). Those are two different application spaces and you can't occupy both at the same time. Sure, some developers are just dicks and that has nothing to do with with the underlying issue but some of that has to do with the fact that Bitcoin has to be more conservative in order to serve that application space. It cannot simply adopt changes without thinking very very far ahead about the implications those changes will have. Bitcoin is not something you build companies on top of. Bitcoin is something you build economies on top of. I never saw really Bitcoin as something that you build companies or apps on top of. The broader cryptocurrency space is playing that game out, and ironically, all of those other things/apps fail to work if you shut off the ability for them to have a sound, neutral money that can be exchanged no matter what, anywhere. Adam B. Levine: So that kind of brings to mind another question, do you have any past strongly held convictions regarding Bitcoin or cryptocurrency where you've changed your mind? Andreas M. Antonopolous: Back in 2015. I thought that we had to address scaling sooner rather than later, and I made some comments about that. I supported a tweet that Gavin Andresen made at the time about increasing the block size and that was a belief that I held strongly. Over the next year, I took a 180 and went in the exact opposite direction. The reason I made a 180 was really simple: from the very early stages, I believed in this idea that the protocol ossifies over time as it gets embedded in more devices. And once it's ossified, you can't make any changes. So I've always thought we have a narrowing window of things we can change in the core protocol to make improvements, the absolutely necessary improvements, before that window shuts, and then you can't make any changes. It's like IPV4 - it's in too many devices, you can't even upgrade it anymore. I believe that's happening. When the scaling debates started I thought we had a window of about two to three years. The debate around scaling which turned into a power play demonstrated practically that that window had already closed for many controversial decisions. That we could not reach consensus, and that the power struggle and ability to make money in that power struggle was already trumping engineering. At that point I realized that in fact, that window was much narrower. Once I realized that, I also understood that there are other more important things that need to be done first: privacy being the most important. And if we have a narrow window, privacy needs to be done in the base layer but scaling can be done in the second layer. Therefore I flipped. I've started believing that privacy was needed first and scalability could wait until later and mostly be done on the second layer quite effectively. I took a lot of flack for that, but it wasn't arbitrary. It was because the facts changed and based on new facts a strongly held opinion was worth nothing because I had to revise my understanding of the space. Jonathan Mohan: I don't think the enemies of Bitcoin are the Rogers or the Bitcoin Cash guys. I think the real enemies are going to be the exchanges in the listing agents and what they will or will not allow to be called Bitcoin when a consumer presses “buy,” when Bitcoin ultimately does have privacy. There's no such thing as private money and I think that everyone says that. Bitcoin needs to be more like physical dollars, and I think that if you try to sell physical dollars today, you go to jail. I don't know how legal Bitcoin will be once it's made private and further I don't know to what extent any of the people we consider allies like the Coinbases of the world would in any way support a Bitcoin with privacy in it. I actually I think we're past the point of Bitcoin having privacy, and if a Bitcoin were to have privacy that it would be some marginalized fork that no one can get access to. I think so my fear has always been: make sure you're building SSL not PGP. Cuz almost everyone uses SSL no one uses PGP. I think we're at the point now where the facts as they are, it's that if Bitcoin were to become truly private, it would be basically the PGP of Bitcoin and the one that isn't would be the SSL of Bitcoin. Andreas Antonopolous: I really like the fact that all of the privacy developments right now, specifically things like taproot and graftroot are actually around obfuscation and plausible deniability to give the exchanges a “see no evil” out of exactly that conundrum. Meaning that if it looks like a payment to a public key and you can no longer tell the difference between that and a Coinjoin, you're done. Stephanie Murphy: I don't know what the future is gonna look like, and nobody knows. We can speculate and think about it and it's really fun, but at the end of the day, none of us can really even imagine it fully and we're gonna have to wait and see what happens, but that’s part of the excitement. Being aware that you don't know is also exciting because you can just be surprised by what comes out and not try to control everything or plan everything. Andreas Antonopolous: I'd like to take the opposite perspective, kind of more optimistic. Because what what you say is true and that's definitely happening but the opposite is also happening. Which is when I think that there's an intractable problem or a very hard problem that we seem stuck on, and then suddenly a brilliant solution emerges from nowhere that nobody expected. That was my experience with for example Ethereum. I had not imagined the application of smart contracts in the way Ethereum did it when it came out when I read that first whitepaper by Vitalik in 2014. I had not seen that coming. Mimble Wimble, Lightning Network, the softfork solutions in Segwit. There's all of these technologies and inventions that came out of nowhere, there was nothing really to prepare me for the idea that these were under development or that someone had thought of them, then boom, suddenly they're on the on the radar. So that's also another thing that makes this such an exciting space: can't predict anything other than it won't be boring.
dcrd: Several steps towards multipeer downloads completed: an optimization to use in-memory block index and a new 1337 chain view. Maintenance: improved test coverage, upgrading dependency management system and preparing for the upcoming Go 1.11 release. dcrwallet: A big change introducing optional privacy-preserving SPV sync mode was merged. In this mode dcrwallet does not download the full blockchain but only gets the "filters", uses them to determine which blocks it needs and fetches them from random nodes on the network. This has on-disk footprint of 300-400 MB and sync time of minutes, compared to ~3.4 GB and sync time of hours for full sync (these are rough estimates).
jy-p: the server side of SPV (in dcrd) was deployed in v1.2.0, the client side of SPV (in dcrwallet) is in our next release, v1.3.0. Still some minor bugs in SPV that are being worked out. There will be an update to add the latest features from BIP 157/158 in the next few months. SPV will be optional in v1.3.0, but it will become the default after we get a proper header commitment for it (#general)
Decrediton: besides regular bugfixes and design improvements, several components are being developed in parallel like SPV mode, Politeia integration and Trezor support. Politeia: testing started on mainnet, thanks to everyone who is participating. A lot of testing, bugfixing and polishing is happening in preparation for full mainnet launch. There are also a few missing features to be added before launch, e.g. capacity to edit a proposal and versioning for that, discussion to remain open once voting starts. Decrediton integration is moving forward, check out this video for a demo and this meta issue for the full checklist. Trezor: Decrediton integration of initial Trezor support is in progress and there is a demo. Android: app design version 2.0 completed. dcrdata: development of several chart visualizations was completed and is awaiting deployment. Specifically, voting agendas and historic charts are merged while ticket pool visualization is in testing. atomicswap: @glendc is seeking reviews of his Ethereum support pull request. Dev activity stats for July: 252 active PRs, 220 master commits, 34,754 added and 12,847 deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 6-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: the month started at 40.5 and ended at 51.6 PH/s, with a low of 33.3 and a new all time high of 68.4 PH/s. F2Pool is leading with 40-45%, followed by the new BeePool at 15-25% and coinmine.pl at 18-23%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 92.6 DCR (-2.1). The price started the month at 94.6 and quickly retreated to month's low of 85 until 1,860 tickets were bought within a single period (versus target 720). This pushed the pool of tickets to 41,970 (2.5% above target), which in turn caused 10 price increases in a row to the month's high of 100.4. This was the highest ticket price seen on the new ticket price algorithm which has been in effect since Jul 2017. Second half of the month there was unusually low volatility between 92 and 94 DCR per ticket. Locked DCR held between 3.75 and 3.87 million or 46.6-48.0% of supply (+0.1% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 212 public listening and 216 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 67% on v1.2.0 (+10%), 24% on v1.1.2 (-1%), 7% on v1.1.0 (-7%). Node count data is not perfect but we can see the steady trend of upgrading to v1.2.0. This version of dcrd is notable for serving compact filters. The increased count of such full nodes allows the developers to test SPV client mode in preparations for the upcoming v1.3.0 release.
Obelisk posted three updates in July. For the most recent daily updates join their Discord. New miner from iBeLink: DSM7T hashes Blake256 at 7 TH/s or Blake2b at 3.5 TH/s, consumes 2,100 W and costs $3,800, shipping Aug 5-10. There were also speculations about the mysterious Pangolin Whatsminer DCR with the speed of 44 TH/s at 2,200 W and the cost of $3,888, shipping November. If you know more about it please share with us in #pow-mining channel.
emiliomann: stakebrasil is one of the pools with the lowest number of missed and expired tickets. It was one of the first and has a smaller percentage than the most recent ones who haven’t had the time to do so. (...) The Brazilian pool should be the one with the more servers spread around the world: 6 to decrease the latency. This is to explain to you why the [pool fee] rate of 5% (currently around 0.06 DCR) on the reward is also one of the highest. girino: 8 voting wallets now. I just finished setting up a new one yesterday. All of them in different datacenters, 3 in europe, 3 in north america, 1 in brazil and one in asia. We also have 3 more servers, 1 for the front end, one for "stats" and one for dcrdata. (#general)
On the mining side, Luxor started a new set of pool servers inside mainland China, while zpool has enabled Decred mining. StatX announced Decred integration into their live dashboard and public chat. Decred was added to Satowallet with BTC and ETH trading pairs. Caution: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.
Marina Silva is the first presidential candidate in Brazil using blockchain to keep all their electoral donations transparent and traceable. VotoLegal uses Decred technology, awesome use case! (reddit)
We continue to see institutional interest in DCR. Large block buyers love the concept of staking as a way to earn additional income and appreciate the stakeholder rights it affords them. Likening a DCR investment to an activist shareholdebondholder gives these institutions some comfort while dipping their toes into a burgeoning new asset class.
Targeted advertising reports released for June and July. As usual, reach @timhebel for full versions.
Big news in June: Facebook reversed their policy on banning crypto ads. ICO ads are still banned, but we should be OK. My team filled out the appeal today, so we should hopefully hear something within a few days. (u/timhebel on reddit)
After couple weeks Facebook finally responded to the appeal and the next step is to verify the domain name via DNS. A pack of Stakey Telegram stickers is now available. Have fun!
Meetup in Berlin, Germany hosted by BlueYard Capital. @jz_bz and @lftherios discussed open source incentivization, the value of governance and their respective projects @decredproject and @oscoin. See @issedjur's feedback here. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Portland, USA. @raedah's talk was "Decentralizing decision-making on the blockchain". Read his report here and see on the photos how the Big Stakey was entertaining the public. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
oregonisaac: many open source devs at OSCON were VERY interested in Politeia and it was probably the #1 hook that resulted in lots of long conversations about what makes Decred unique from the ground up. (#politeia)
Blockchain Meetup in Faro, Portugal. Marco Peereboom gave a talk "Decred 101" and answered questions.
Meetup in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug 2. @moo31337 and @mm will be presenting on Decred with talk "Decred 101 - Governance with skin in the game". Co-hosted by The Block Cafe. Free entrance.
Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan on Aug 5. @morphymore will give a short intro on Decred.
OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on Aug 9. @joshuam will introduce Decred and on-chain governance and take part in a panel discussion.
Twitter: Ari Paul debates "There can be only one" aka "highlander argument". Reddit and Forum: how ticket pool size influences average vote time; roadmap concerns; why ticket price was volatile; ideas for using Reddit chat for dcrtrader and alternative chat systems; insette's write-up on Andrew Stone's GROUP proposal for miner-validated tokenization that is superior to current OP_RETURN-based schemes; James Liu's paper to extend atomic swaps to financial derivatives; what happens when all DCR are mined, tail emission and incentives for miners. Chats: why tickets don't have 100% chance to vote; ideas for more straightforward marketing; long-running chat about world economy and failure modes; @brandon's thoughts on tokenizing everything, ICOs, securities, sidechains and more; challenges of staking with Trezor; ideas how to use CryptoSteel wallet with Decred; why exchange can't stake your coins, how staking can increase security, why the function to export seed from wallet is bad idea and why dcrwallet doesn't ever store the seed; ticket voting math; discussion about how GitHub workflow forces to depend on modern web browser and possible alternatives; funding marketing and education in developing markets, vetting contractors based on deliverables, "Decred contractor clearance", continued in #governance. #dex channel continues to attract thinkers and host chats about influence of exchanges, regulation, HFT, lot sizes, liquidity, on-chain vs off-chain swaps, to name a few topics. #governance also keeps growing and hosting high quality conversations.
In July DCR was trading in USD 56-76 and BTC 0.0072-0.0109 range. A recovery started after a volume boost of up to $10.5 m on Fex around Jul 13, but once Bitcoin headed towards USD ~8,000 DCR declined along with most altcoins. WalletInvestor posted a prediction on dcrtrader. Decred was noticed in top 10 mineable coins on coinmarketcap.com.
One million PCs in China were infected via browser plugins to mine Decred, Siacoin and Digibyte. In a Unchained podcast episode David Vorick shared why ASICs are better than GPUs even if they tend toward mining centralization and also described Obelisk's new Launchpad service. (missed in June issue) Sia project moved to GitLab. The stated reasons are to avoid the risk of depending on centralized service, to avoid vendor lock-in, better continuous integration and testing, better access control and the general direction to support decentralized and open source projects. Luxor explained why PPS pools are better. @nic__carter published slides from his talk "An Overview of Governance in Blockchains" from Zcon0. This article arguing the importance of governance systems dates back to 2007. Bancor wallet was hacked. This reminds us about the fake feeling of decentralizaion, that custody of funds is dangerous and that smart contracts must have minimum complexity and be verifiable. Circle announced official Poloniex mobile apps for iOS and Android. On Jul 27 Circle announced delisting of 9 coins from Poloniex that led to a loss of 23-81% of their value same day. Sad reminder about how much a project can depend on a single centralized exchange. DCR supply and market cap is now correct on onchainfx.com and finally, on coinmarketcap.com. Thanks to @sumiflow, @jz and others doing the tedious work to reach out the various websites.
About This Issue
Hashrate: went from 54 to 76 PH/s, the low was 50 and the new all-time high is 100 PH/s. BeePool share rose to ~50% while F2Pool shrank to 30%, followed by coinmine.pl at 5% and Luxor at 3%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 95.6 DCR (+3.0) as of Sep 3. During the month, ticket price fluctuated between a low of 92.2 and high of 100.5 DCR. Locked DCR represented between 3.8 and 3.9 million or 46.3-46.9% of the supply. Nodes: there are 217 public listening and 281 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 2% at v1.4.0(pre) (dev builds), 5% on v1.3.0 (RC1), 62% on v1.2.0 (-5%), 22% on v1.1.2 (-2%), 6% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Almost 69% of nodes are v.1.2.0 and higher and support client filters. Data snapshot of Aug 31.
Obelisk posted 3 email updates in August. DCR1 units are reportedly shipping with 1 TH/s hashrate and will be upgraded with firmware to 1.5 TH/s. Batch 1 customers will receive compensation for missed shipment dates, but only after Batch 5 ships. Batch 2-5 customers will be receiving the updated slim design. Innosilicon announced the new D9+ DecredMaster: 2.8 TH/s at 1,230 W priced $1,499. Specified shipping date was Aug 10-15. FFMiner DS19 claims 3.1 TH/s for Blake256R14 at 680 W and simultaneously 1.55 TH/s for Blake2B at 410 W, the price is $1,299. Shipping Aug 20-25. Another newly noticed miner offer is this unit that does 46 TH/s at 2,150 W at the price of $4,720. It is shipping Nov 2018 and the stats look very close to Pangolin Whatsminer DCR (which has now a page on asicminervalue).
www.d1pool.com joined the list of stakepools for a total of 16. Australian CoinTreeadded DCR trading. The platform supports fiat, there are some limitations during the upgrade to a new system but also no fees in the "Early access mode". On a related note, CoinTree is working on a feature to pay household bills with cryptocurrencies it supports. Three new OTC desks were added to exchanges page at decred.org. Two mobile wallets integrated Decred:
Coinomiadded Decred to their Android and iOS wallets. In addition to the Apple App Store and Google Play you can download the APK directly. Coinomi features an integrated cryptocurrency exchange and is the first company to offer a mobile Decred wallet.
Reminder: do your best to understand the security and privacy model before using any wallet software. Points to consider: who controls the seed, does the wallet talk to the nodes directly or via middlemen, is it open source or not?
Bit Dialsannounced DCR support via GloBee at their bitdials.eu luxury boutique. Their separate supercar and classic car shop bitcars.eu also accepts DCR, either via GloBee or with manual invoicing in case of privacy concerns.
Targeted advertising report for August was posted by @timhebel. Facebook appeal is pending, some Google and Twitter campaigns were paused and some updated. Read more here. Contribution to the @decredproject Twitter account has evolved over the past few months. A #twitter_ops channel is being used on Matrix to collaboratively draft and execute project account tweets (including retweets). Anyone with an interest in contributing to the Twitter account can ask for an invitation to the channel and can start contributing content and ideas there for evaluation by the Twitter group. As a result, no minority or unilateral veto over tweets is possible. (from GitHub)
Meetup in Puebla City, Mexico, organized by @elian. (photo, slides, missed in July issue)
@joshuam discussed Decred and decentralized organizations with Craig Laundy, Federal Minister for Small Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation with the Australian Government, at @YBFVentures. (photos)
Meetup at @TheBlockCafe in Lisbon, Portugal. @mm presented "Decred 101 - Governance with Skin in the Game" and @moo31337 talked about Decred's 2018 roadmap. (photos: 123)
Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan. @morphymore made a short intro of Decred and noted: "After the talk, many have approached to tell me that they literally don’t hear of Decred until today, and are interested in finding out more about the merit of a hybrid consensus system.". Longer report here, some photos and a video are here.
@eSizeDave introduced Decred to the SILC Undergraduate Program students at @YBFVentures. (photo)
OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. @joshuam gave a brief presentation covering the history of Decred, how the project functions, and the importance of governance. Afterwards he joined a panel discussion and spoke about Decred's incentives for long term viability. (video, video, photo)
Blockchain Futurist Conference in Toronto, Canada. @zubairzia0 noted: "Devs and the community were held in high regard for the people who knew about decred ... one positive thing I remember was someone defending us saying 'Decred does not need a booth', I believe that comment was reflective of the quality of projects being showcased at the conference.". (photo)
Meetup at @YBFVentures in Melbourne, Australia. @joshuam discussed Decred with Graham Stuart, U.K. Minister for International Trade. (news, photos)
Small meetup with Jackson Palmer in Melbourne, Australia. (photo)
Hawthorne Street Fair in Portland, USA. Raedah Group was out answering questions about crypto and Decred. (photos)
Blockchain APAC in Melbourne, Australia. @joshuam joined a panel discussion with reps from banking, university and ISO/TC 307. @eSizeDave reports: "This enterprise conference was indeed a whole lot better than I expected. The presentations were actually full of very worthwhile information from credible people, articulated aptly to a very government, academic, and corporate crowd, who genuinely took on board valuable insights. Good to know some of these key people are Decred holders and stakers as well. I got to use the entire day to speak directly with some of the most pivotal personalities in this particular populace. Ongoing relationships have been built and strengthened.". (photos: 123)
For those willing to help with the events:
BAB: Hey all, we are gearing up for conference season. I have a list of places we hope to attend but need to know who besides @joshuam and @Haon are willing to do public speaking, willing to work booths, or help out at them? You will need to be well versed on not just what is Decred, but the history of Decred etc... DM me if you are interested. (#event_planning) The Decred project is looking for ambassadors. If you are looking for a fun cryptocurrency to get involved in send me a DM or come talk to me on Decred slack. (@marco_peereboom, longer version here)
One private work channel was successfully migrated to Matrix.
Stylish room avatars were set.
@Haon has prepared a short guide to help new Matrix users get started and join the Decred rooms.
A thread was started to discuss changes to Decred jargon with the intent to make it more consistent and accessible to newcomers. The question whether changing "official" terminology requires stakeholder approval was touched in this thread and in #documentation.
Project fund transparency and constitution were extensively discussed on Reddit and in #general.
Pre-proposal to use Politeia to approve Politeia as a legitimate decision-making tool for Decred.
Reddit: substantive discussion about Decred cons; ecosystem fund; a thread about voter engagement, Politeia UX and trolling; idea of a social media system for Decred by @michae2xl; how profitable is the Obelisk DCR1. Chats: cross-chain trading via LN; plans for contractor management system, lower-level decision making and contractor privacy vs transparency for stakeholders; measuring dev activity; what if the network stalls, multiple implementations of Decred for more resilience, long term vision behind those extensive tests and accurate comments in the codebase; ideas for process for policy documents, hosting them in Pi and approving with ticket voting; about SPV wallet disk size, how compact filters work; odds of a wallet fetching a wrong block in SPV; new module system in Go; security of allowing Android app backups; why PoW algo change proposal must be specified in great detail; thoughts about NIPoPoWs and SPV; prerequisites for shipping SPV by default (continued); Decred vs Dash treasury and marketing expenses, spending other people's money; why Decred should not invade a country, DAO and nation states, entangling with nation state is poor resource allocation; how winning tickets are determined and attack vectors; Politeia proposal moderation, contractor clearance, the scale of proposals and decision delegation, initial Politeia vote to approve Politeia itself; chat systems, Matrix/Slack/Discord/RocketChat/Keybase (continued); overview of Korean exchanges; no breaking changes in vgo; why project fund burn rate must keep low; asymptotic behavior of Decred and other ccs, tail emission; count of full nodes and incentives to run them; Politeia proposal translations and multilingual environment. An unusual event was the chat about double negatives and other oddities in languages in #trading.
DCR started the month at USD 56 / BTC 0.0073 and had a two week decline. On Aug 14 the whole market took a huge drop and briefly went below USD 200 billion. Bitcoin went below USD 6,000 and top 100 cryptos lost 5-30%. The lowest point coincided with Bitcoin dominance peak at 54.5%. On that day Decred dived -17% and reached the bottom of USD 32 / BTC 0.00537. Since then it went sideways in the USD 35-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0064 range. Around Aug 24, Huobi showed DCR trading volume above USD 5M and this coincided with a minor recovery. @ImacallyouJawdy posted some creative analysis based on ticket data.
StopAndDecrypt published an extensive article "ASIC Resistance is Nothing but a Blockchain Buzzword" that is much in line with Decred's stance on ASICs. The ongoing debates about the possible Sia fork yet again demonstrate the importance of a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Also, we are lucky to have the treasury. Mark B Lundeberg, who found a vulnerability in atomicswap earlier, published a concept of more private peer-to-peer atomic swaps. (missed in July issue) Medium took a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies and triggered at least one project to migrate to Ghost (that same project previously migrated away from Slack). Regulation: Vietnam bans mining equipment imports, China halts crypto events and tightens control of crypto chat groups. Reddit was hacked by intercepting 2FA codes sent via SMS. The announcement explains the impact. Yet another data breach suggests to think twice before sharing any data with any company and shift to more secure authentication systems. Intel and x86 dumpsterfire keeps burning brighter. Seek more secure hardware and operating systems for your coins. Finally, unrelated to Decred but good for a laugh: yetanotherico.com.
About This Issue
This is the 5th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack. Contributions are welcome too. Some areas are collecting content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Check out @Richard-Red's guide how to contribute to Decred using GitHub without writing code. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon, jazzah, Richard-Red and thedecreddigest.
In 2010, Gavin predicted that exchanges (i.e., the economic majority), not miners, would determine the outcome of a hard fork.
In the middle of 2010, a random user named epaulson -- who only ever posted on bitcointalk.org a total of eight times -- began a thread titled, "How do we prevent Bitcoin forks (or should we)?" in which he predicted the current BU situation in an almost uncanny way. The whole post is worth reading, but just a snippet:
It seems to me that if someone convinced enough people to use an alternative bitcoin program that generated more or less valid blocks but potentially differed in some other way (perhaps a Trojan), he or she could break or undermine the whole system . . . So, how do we prevent bitcoin from forking, down the road? At some point there is bound to be a large group of users unhappy with the status quo and an effort will be made to split the project, to the detriment of everyone. Can we build in a consensus about the valid identities of the client programs in the same way that we do for the transaction log (or is that already being done)? Or do people have the right to make a fork, despite the negative consequences?
This poster went on to write the following:
Everyone here (including myself) is more intrigued by the technical aspects of bitcoin, but the social aspects of the system are ultimately going to be more important, unless someone can figure out a way to solve these problems technically. If bitcoin is ever going to succeed beyond a novelty, these issues are going to have to be resolved somehow. I'm no expert at "social engineering" but I think this needs to be a priority sooner, rather than later, if the project is ever going to succeed significantly.
Though he did not specifically anticipate that the debate would revolve around block size, he offered a hypothetical situation in which miners would collectively use their hashing power to push for a change to the protocol in which the block reward remained at 50, rather than letting it reduce to 25. It is a very interesting read, I suggest anyone interested in how the early community thought about these problems should take a look. But that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose is to highlight Gavin Andresen's reponse:
Eventually the largest merchants and money exchangers will control what is "standard" bitcoin.
This is extremely important to see that Gavin believed this in light of current day events. As you may know, recently Charlie Lee of Coinbase sent out a series of tweets in which he argued that the exchanges -- precisely that power Gavin predicted would control Bitcoin -- would not be able to accept BU as Bitcoin for a very simple reason: there is always the possibility that the chain with tighter rules (Core) will become more valuable than the chain with looser rules (BU), this is even if BU possesses more hashing power initially. This is because transactions on the looser chain always have the possibility of being orphaned should the tighter chain ever regain the lead. Since such an event would make exchanges insolvent, they simply cannot take the risk of considering BU bitcoin, no matter how remote the possibility, and therefore will not deal with BU unless it is an altcoin. For this very reason, despite superior hash power, BU bitcoin has a strong chance of losing value as exchanges refuse to accept it which would ultimately result in hash power switching back to Core and causing BU transactions to simply disappear from existence. It is a self-reinforcing cycle, in which the exchanges fear BU for this possibility, and the more they fear the possibility, the more likely it becomes. To this argument from Charlie, Gavin quickly responded with a series of tweets in which he argued that this scenario was highly unlikely. Yet, in 2010, in response to epaulson's thread, Gavin argued precisely along the same lines as Charlie Lee:
Take the "50-coiners" scenario, and imagine that they manage to get 75% of the CPU power on their side. But imagine that the biggest merchants and money exchangers are more conservative, and are in the 25% minority. I think they will be-- I don't think they'll be the ones in the business of generating coins (they'll be busy selling products or doing the exchange thing). What happens? Well, the block chain splits. Transactions using coins minted before the split will get added to both block chains, and accepted by everybody. Transactions involving "50-coins" (generated after the split) will be accepted on the 50-coin chain, rejected on the 25-coin chain. And vice-versa. "50-coiners" would quickly find out that they couldn't get rid of their newly minted money because who wants bitcoins that are rejected by the biggest money exchangers or merchants?
In other words, in 2010 Gavin was essentially reinforcing Charlie Lee's present day argument. Since exchanges cannot accept BU as BTC because of the threat it presents to them and the very real possibility that they might lose their business over it, exchanges will refuse to acknowledge transactions that occur following a BU takeover. Despite what he is saying today, Gavin predicted that ultimately exchanges, not miners, would determine the definition of Bitcoin.
Note: New Reddit look may not highlight links. See old look here. A copy is hosted on GitHub for better reading experience. Check it out, contains photo of the month! Also on Medium
dcrd: Significant optimization in signature hash calculation, bloom filters support was removed, 2x faster startup thanks to in-memory full block index, multipeer work advancing, stronger protection against majority hashpower attacks. Additionally, code refactoring and cleanup, code and test infrastructure improvements. In dcrd and dcrwallet developers have been experimenting with new modular dependency and versioning schemes using vgo. @orthomind is seeking feedback for his work on reproducible builds. Decrediton: 1.2.1 bugfix release, work on SPV has started, chart additions are in progress. Further simplification of the staking process is in the pipeline (slack). Politeia: new command line tool to interact with Politeia API, general development is ongoing. Help with testing will soon be welcome: this issue sets out a test plan, join #politeia to follow progress and participate in testing. dcrdata: work ongoing on improved design, adding more charts and improving Insight API support. Android: design work advancing. Decred's own DNS seeder (dcrseeder) was released. It is written in Go and it properly supports service bit filtering, which will allow SPV nodes to find full nodes that support compact filters. Ticket splitting service by @matheusd entered beta and demonstrated an 11-way split on mainnet. Help with testing is much appreciated, please join #ticket_splitting to participate in splits, but check this doc to learn about the risks. Reddit discussion here. Trezor support is expected to land in their next firmware update. Decred is now supported by Riemann, a toolbox from James Prestwich to construct transactions for many UTXO-based chains from human-readable strings. Atomic swap with Ethereum on testnet was demonstrated at Blockspot Conference LATAM. Two new faces were added to contributors page. Dev activity stats for May: 238 active PRs, 195 master commits, 32,831 added and 22,280 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: rapid growth from ~4,000 TH/s at the beginning of the month to ~15,000 at the end with new all time high of 17,949. Interesting dynamic in hashrate distribution across mining pools: coinmine.pl share went down from 55% to 25% while F2Pool up from 2% to 44%. [Note: as of June 6, the hashrate continues to rise and has already passed 22,000 TH/s] Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 91.3 DCR (+0.8), stake participation is 46.9% (+0.8%) with 3.68 million DCR locked (+0.15). Min price was 85.56. On May 11 ticket price surged to 96.99, staying elevated for longer than usual after such a pump. Locked DCR peaked at 47.17%. jet_user on reddit suggested that the DCR for these tickets likely came from a miner with significant hashrate. Nodes: there are 226 public listening and 405 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 45% on v1.2.0 (up from 24% last month), 39% on v1.1.2, 15% on v1.1.0 and 1% running outdaded versions.
Obelisk team posted an update. Current hashrate estimate of DCR1 is 1200 GH/s at 500 W and may still change. The chips came back at 40% the speed of the simulated results, it is still unknown why. Batch 1 units may get delayed 1-2 weeks past June 30. See discussions on decred and on siacoin. @SiaBillionaire estimated that 7940 DCR1 units were sold in Batches 1-5, while Lynmar13 shared his projections of DCR1 profitability (reddit). A new Chinese miner for pre-order was noticed by our Telegram group. Woodpecker WB2 specs 1.5 TH/s at 1200 W, costs 15,000 CNY (~2,340 USD) and the initial 150 units are expected to ship on Aug 15. (pow8.com – translated) Another new miner is iBelink DSM6T: 6 TH/s at 2100 W costing $6,300 (ibelink.co). Shipping starts from June 5. Some concerns and links were posted in these twothreads.
A new mining pool is available now: altpool.net. It uses PPLNS model and takes 1% fee. Another infrastructure addition is tokensmart.io, a newly audited stake pool with 0.8% fee. There are a total of 14 stake pools now. Exchange integrations:
Upbit added DCKRW and DCUSDT pairs. A user reported that DCR deposits and withdrawals are now available.
CoinEx announced the launch of DCBTC and DCBCH pairs.
Bleutrade added DCUSDT pair. Note their reply to our tweet. It was the first exchange to list Decred minutes after launch.
Brazilian exchange OmniTradeadded DCBRL fiat pair following a poll. Worth noting that it is one of the first to integrate Trezor sign-in.
There are reports that DCR was added to Abucoins and Tor Exchange but we don't know much about them.
OpenBazaar released an update that allows one to trade cryptocurrencies, including DCR. @i2Rav from i2trading is now offering two sided OTC market liquidity on DCUSD in #trading channel. Paytomat, payments solution for point of sale and e-commerce, integrated Decred. (missed in April issue) CoinPayments, a payment processor supporting Decred, developed an integration with @Shopify that allows connected merchants to accept cryptocurrencies in exchange for goods.
michae2xl: Voto Legal: CEO Thiago Rondon of Appcívico, has already been contacted by 800 politicians and negotiations have started with four pre-candidates for the presidency (slack, source tweet)
Blockfolio rolled out Signal Beta with Decred in the list. Users who own or watch a coin will automatically receive updates pushed by project teams. Nice to see this Journal made it to the screenshot! Placeholder Ventures announced that Decred is their first public investment. Their Investment Thesis is a clear and well researched overview of Decred. Among other great points it noted the less obvious benefit of not doing an ICO:
By choosing not to pre-sell coins to speculators, the financial rewards from Decred’s growth most favor those who work for the network.
One project that stands out at #Consensus2018 is @decredproject. Not annoying. Real tech. Humble team. #BUIDL is strong with them. (@PallerJohn)
Token Summit in New York, USA. @cburniske and @jmonegro from Placeholder talked "Governance and Cryptoeconomics" and spoke highly of Decred. (twitter coverage: 12, video, video (from 32 min)) Campus Party in Bahia, Brazil. João Ferreira aka @girino and Gabriel @Rhama were introducing Decred, talking about governance and teaching to perform atomic swaps. (photos) Decred was introduced to the delegates from Shanghai's Caohejing Hi-Tech Park, organized by @ybfventures. Second Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (photos) Madison Blockchain in Madison, USA. "Lots of in-depth questions. The Q&A lasted longer than the presentation!". (photo) Blockspot Conference Latam in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photos: 1, 2) Upcoming events:
The Long-Term Bullish Case for Decred by Ben Davidow (medium.com)
Hardware Companies Are Launching Dedicated ASIC Miners for Decred (btcmanager.com)
Iterative Capital partner Chris Dannen and journalist Ben Schiller speak with Marco and Jonathan from Decred at Consensus 2018 (soundcloud)
Decred Review: What is DCR, the Decred Community & Possible Challenges by BitBoy Crypto (youtube)
Decred Founder: Bitcoin Paved Way, Phase 2 Will Shock You! (Marco Peereboom) by Pure Blockchain Wealth (youtube)
Decred & Blocknet: Revolutionary governance for every community feat. JZ at Consensus 2018 (youtube)
Decred coin - Will it be better than Bitcoin? by Bitassist (youtube)
Community stats: Twitter 39,118 (+742), Reddit 8,167 (+277), Slack 5,658 (+160). Difference is between May 5 and May 31. Reddit highlights: transparent up/down voting on Politeia, combining LN and atomic swaps, minimum viable superorganism, the controversial debate on Decred contractor model (people wondered about true motives behind the thread), tx size and fees discussion, hard moderation case, impact of ASICs on price, another "Why Decred?" thread with another excellent pitch by solar, fee analysis showing how ticket price algorithm change was controversial with ~100x cut in miner profits, impact of ticket splitting on ticket price, recommendations on promoting Decred, security against double spends and custom voting policies. @R3VoLuT1OneR posted a preview of a proposal from his company for Decred to offer scholarships for students. dcrtrader gained a couple of new moderators, weekly automatic threads were reconfigured to monthly and empty threads were removed. Currently most trading talk happens on #trading and some leaks to decred. A separate trading sub offers some advantages: unlimited trading talk, broad range of allowed topics, free speech and transparent moderation, in addition to standard reddit threaded discussion, permanent history and search. Forum: potential social attacks on Decred. Slack: the #governance channel created last month has seen many intelligent conversations on topics including: finite attention of decision makers, why stakeholders can make good decisions (opposed to a common narrative than only developers are capable of making good decisions), proposal funding and contractor pre-qualification, Cardano and Dash treasuries, quadratic voting, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and much more. One particularly important issue being discussed is the growing number of posts arguing that on-chain governance and coin voting is bad. Just a few examples from Twitter: Decred is solving an imagined problem (decent response by @jm_buirski), we convince ourselves that we need governance and ticket price algo vote was not controversial, on-chain governance hurts node operators and it is too early for it, it robs node operators of their role, crypto risks being captured by the wealthy, it is a huge threat to the whole public blockchain space, coin holders should not own the blockchain. Some responses were posted here and here on Twitter, as well as this article by Noah Pierau.
The month of May has seen Decred earn some much deserved attention in the markets. DCR started the month around 0.009 BTC and finished around 0.0125 with interim high of 0.0165 on Bittrex. In USD terms it started around $81 and finished around $92, temporarily rising to $118. During a period in which most altcoins suffered, Decred has performed well; rising from rank #45 to #30 on Coinmarketcap. The addition of a much awaited KRW pair on Upbit saw the price briefly double on some exchanges. This pair opens up direct DCR to fiat trading in one of the largest cryptocurrency markets in the world. An update from @i2Rav:
We have begun trading DCR in large volume daily. The interest around DCR has really started to grow in terms of OTC quote requests. More and more customers are asking about trading it.
Like in previous month, Decred scores high by "% down from ATH" indicator being #2 on onchainfx as of June 6.
David Vorick (@taek) published lots of insights into the world of ASIC manufacturing (reddit). Bitmain replied. Bitmain released an ASIC for Equihash (archived), an algorithm thought to be somewhat ASIC-resistant 2 years ago. Threepure PoWcoins were attacked this month, one attempting to be ASIC resistant. This shows the importance of Decred's PoS layer that exerts control over miners and allows Decred to welcome ASIC miners for more PoW security without sacrificing sovereignty to them. Upbit was raided over suspected fraud and put under investigation. Following news reported no illicit activity was found and suggested and raid was premature and damaged trust in local exchanges. Circle, the new owner of Poloniex, announced a USD-backed stablecoin and Bitmain partnership. The plan is to make USDC available as a primary market on Poloniex. More details in the FAQ. Poloniex announced lower trading fees. Bittrex plans to offer USD trading pairs. @sumiflow made good progress on correcting Decred market cap on several sites:
speaking of market cap, I got it corrected on coingecko, cryptocompare, and worldcoinindex onchainfx, livecoinwatch, and cryptoindex.co said they would update it about a month ago but haven't yet I messaged coinlib.io today but haven't got a response yet coinmarketcap refused to correct it until they can verify certain funds have moved from dev wallets which is most likely forever unknowable (slack)
About This Issue
Some source links point to Slack messages. Although Slack hides history older than ~5 days, you can read individual messages if you paste the message link into chat with yourself. Digging the full conversation is hard but possible. The history of all channels bridged to Matrix is saved in Matrix. Therefore it is possible to dig history in Matrix if you know the timestamp of the first message. Slack links encode the timestamp: https://decred.slack.com/archives/C5H9Z63AA/p1525528370000062 => 1525528370 => 2018-05-05 13:52:50. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. Your feedback is precious. You can post on GitHub, comment on Reddit or message us in #writers_room channel. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Richard-Red, snr01 and solar.
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT. Summary Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it. I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater". SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while. But then we all learned that:
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork would be incredibly dangerous - introducing massive, unnecessary and harmful "technical debt" by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits). So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community. However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year. So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community. We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork. But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork. The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear: Bitcoin users are not stupid. Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork. And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote. And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately. We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack. If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit). Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code. Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago. But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences. Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/ TL;DR: You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream? Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics. Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault. The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
New Bitcoin Unlimited website was launched today. Come take a look!
29 April 2017: BU Launches New Website
Bitcoin Unlimited is very excited to be launching a new website today. The site specifically targets bitcoin users, node operators, miners and investors, explaining how BU benefits each group. It also highlights the novel new technologies that the BU team has contributed to help the network backbone scale to meet the demands of the global economy, showcasing BU's adjustable block cap feature, xtreme thin blocks, and parallel validation. Secretary and Chief Scientist Peter Rizun explains that "when the block size limit debate broke out, there were three main obstacles: (1) node operators couldn't increase their node's block size limit without recompiling from source code, (2) block propagation--especially across the Great Firewall of China--was the dominant scaling bottleneck, and (3) certain pathological transactions, if included in a block, would cause nodes to freeze for over a minute. These obstacles have been overcome and I think this new website will help to make this clear." In addition to highlighting BU's novel technologies, the new site includes a more comprehensive resource section featuring scaling-related articles written by BU members, along with a list of all Bitcoin Unlimited Improvement Proposals (BUIPs) to date. Lastly the site includes a comprehensive set of FAQs. "My impression was and is that Bitcoin Unlimited is terribly misunderstood," noted one of the anonymous FAQ contributors. "The lack of knowledge and a public place for easy consumable information has been the source of misinformation and made it extremely difficult to fight misinformation. With the FAQ I want to help raise awareness of what BU is really about." The new website wouldn't have been possible without the help and professionalism of website developer Sina Habibian. "It’s been a pleasure working with the Bitcoin Unlimited team in building their new website," Sina remarked. "There are many technical and non-technical resources included on the site that shed light on how BU operates. My hope is that this will inform our public dialogue and focus our attention on the technical and economic merits of BU." Sina ended with a reminder that BU is a community project and a call for more people to get involved: "The open-source code for the site is available on Github. Please contribute if you see room for improvement." Link to website: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info
Zilliqa: A Game-Changer When It Comes To Blockchain Scalability
DISCLAIMER: I am in no way associated with the Zilliqa team. Neither am I a financial advisor, nor is this meant to be financial advice. Whatever follows, just reflects my understanding of the project, and my personal opinion on its future outlook. Recently we have seen a lot of debate surrounding scalability of public blockchains, partly stemming from the CryptoKitties fiasco. CryptoKitties is an online game, created by Vancouver-based Axiom Zen, that allows users to purchase, trade, and breed digital kittens. Soon after its public release on November 28, the game took the cryptocurrency world by surprise, accounting for about 11% of total transactions on the Ethereum network, the blockchain that the CryptoKitties application is built on. The volume of traffic on the platform within the first week of its release was enough to put serious strain on the Ethereum blockchain, clogging the network, causing significantly slower transactions times and higher transaction costs for all the blockchain users. Some may argue that having an application like Cryptokitties on the Blockchain is frivolous, since the application is a non-coin related gaming platform. However, I think that this is a great application of the Blockchain technology, and why the technology is so disruptive. In fact Ethereum Co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, himself tweeted in support of the application, emphasizing on the value that the blockchain technology brings. So, maybe instead of asking the question: ‘Should we have an application like CryptoKitties on a public blockchain?’, we should really be asking the question: ‘Shouldn’t public blockchains be more scalable to real world application?’. The fact is that, as of today, blockchains are limited in their ability to scale, which some argue is the biggest technological barrier to global adoption of the technology. WHAT LIMITS SCALABILITY OF BLOCKCHAINS? Consensus protocols on existing public blockchains (Ethereum, Bitcoin, Neo, Ripple etc.) have a critical requirement for validation of transactions: every participating node on the network has to validate each transaction sequentially, and then store transactions on the ledger, a copy of which is maintained by each node. This requirement is what imparts, to blockchains, their key characteristic —‘decentralization’. However, in such a decentralized system, as the number of transactions on the network increases (with, for example, blockchain adoption), the need for additional nodes, to process and store transactions, also increases. As the number of nodes on the network increases, the data for each transaction has to travel a lot more before being validated and stored by ALL the nodes on the network. Therefore, the network does not scale well as more nodes are added to the network due to the inter-node latency that increases logarithmically with each additional node. In effect, blockchain scalability reduces as the network size increases. Public blockchain consensus protocols, that operate in this fashion, are forced to choose decentralization over high transaction throughput. Today, approximately 900 distributed applications (dApps) are built on the Ethereum Network. With a transaction throughput of about 15 transactions-per-second (tx/s), Ethereum is barely capable of handling the current transaction volume, and would have to scale significantly to be able to handle the expected transaction volume in the near future. The Bitcoin network is even worse in terms of transaction throughput, processing only about 4 to 7 tx/s. Similar is the story for all the existing public blockchain platforms, with some being slightly more scalable than others, but all glaring into a future where blockchain transaction throughput could be a severe bottleneck, hindering mass adoption of the blockchain technology. Researchers from the National University of Singapore (NUS) have founded a blockchain startup called [Zilliqa](https://www.zilliqa.com/). This new blockchain uses the ‘sharding’ technology, that is set to achieve Visa and MasterCard level transaction throughput of about 4000 tx/s. HOW IS ZILLIQA A GAME-CHANGER IN THE DOMAIN OF PUBLIC BLOCKCHAINS Zilliqa is a high-throughput public blockchain platform designed to scale to thousands of transactions per second. The reasons, I believe, Zilliqa stands out as a public blockchain platform suitable for global adoption are as follows:
Zilliqa is linearly scalable. Linear scalability means that as the number of participating nodes in the network increases, the transaction throughput also increases at an almost linear rate. Although it may sound intuitive, the fact is that, for most blockchains, the opposite is actually true, i.e. as the number of participating nodes in the network increases, each transaction now has to be broadcasted to a greater number of nodes before being validated and added to the ledger, thereby limiting transaction throughput. This is the reason why many solutions to increase transaction throughput depend on restricting the number of participating nodes on the network, which comes at the cost of a reduced degree of decentralization.
Zilliqa is the first public blockchain to implement sharding. Sharding is a concept that has existed for distributed systems for a long time, where it is used to improve scalability, performance, and I/O bandwidth. However, the concept has not yet been implemented on any public blockchain. Sharding is the process of automatic splitting of a network of nodes into parallel chains called ‘shards’, where each shard processes a small portion of all transactions in conjunction with other shards, resulting in a microblock from each shard. These micro-blocks are then merged into one complete block that is added to the blockchain. Zilliqa is now leading the way in implementing this automatic network parallelization for public blockchains.
In October 2017, running with 3600 nodes and 6 shards, Zilliqa has already recorded a peak throughput of 2488 tx/s on its internal testnet. This is already about 250 times higher throughput than Ethereum. With the first version of Zilliqa’s public mainnet scheduled for Q2 2018, this is a remarkable feat, and goes to show how Zilliqa is well on track to make the blockchain technology practical for high throughput applications, and hence global adoption.
Zilliqa uses Proof-of-Work (PoW) just to establish mining identities, and not as a consensus protocol, thereby significantly reducing the overall energy footprint. This is fundamentally different from other PoW blockchains, like Bitcoin, where PoW is performed to mine every block, making the mining process energy intensive.
Zilliqa uses an optimized practical Byzantine Fault Tolerant (pBFT) consensus protocol which gives finality to transactions. In other words, unlike PoW-based consensus, where multiple confirmations are required, pBFT does not allow temporary forks due to the consensus protocol, i.e. once a block gets committed to the blockchain, no other block can share the same parent as the committed block. As a result, no confirmations are required.
Zilliqa’s pBFT based consensus allows for efficient management of storage requirements. Because of finality, the entire transaction history does not have to be saved on the blockchain. Instead it is sufficient to store only the latest state. With smart contracts, however, the storage requirements increase significantly. But Zilliqa is exploring collaboration opportunities with distributed cloud storage networks such as Bluzelle and Genaro Network, to be able to utilize their storage for storing blocks and fetching them, when needed, for the execution of smart contracts.
Zilliqa’s smart contract language is easier to reason and less prone to bugs. Unlike Ethereum, Zilliqa’s smart contract language is not Turing complete, and instead it uses a non-Turing complete language, which makes it simpler, easy to understand, and more receptive to formal methods-based verification.
Zilliqa is the only blockchain protocol that is truly scalable without sacrificing security or decentralization. There are other blockchain protocols that claim to have higher transaction throughput, but they achieve this, either by restricting the number of participating nodes on the network, thereby increasing the degree of centralization, or by making the blockchain more vulnerable to attacks, and hence reducing the security of the blockchain.
HOW DOES ZILLIQA COMPARE AGAINST ITS 'COMPETITORS'? Although Zilliqa’s team does not see the other existing public blockchains as competitors, and rather takes a more open approach towards them, facilitating a healthy environment of learning from each project and developing on it, I use the term ‘competitors’ here in the conventional sense to be able to compare Zilliqa head-to-head against the existing blockchains. The following comparisons are based on the information shared by Zilliqa’s team with the community. Zilliqa versus Bitcoin:
Bitcoin network processes about 4 to 7 tx/s, whereas Zilliqa has already processed about 500 times more transactions per second on its testnet.
Since Bitcoin uses PoW as a consensus protocol, it applies PoW on each block, making mining of blocks much more energy intensive. Zilliqa, on the other hand, uses pBFT as a consensus protocol, with PoW just being applied for miner identification. Therefore, the high energy costs associated with PoW will not apply in Zilliqa.
Unlike Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism, Zilliqa’s pBFT gives finality to transactions, requiring no confirmations, which significantly reduces the storage requirements.
Unlike Bitcoin, Zilliqa has smart contract functionality and it supports the building of dApps on its platform.
Ethereum network processes about 10 to 12 tx/s, whereas Zilliqa’s transaction throughput is already about 250 times higher.
Just like Bitcoin, Ethereum also uses PoW as its consensus protocol. Therefore Zilliqa’s pBFT consensus protocol makes it much more energy efficient.
Ethereum’s PoW-based consensus does not protect it against temporary forks, and hence requires a certain number of confirmations before the block is committed. However, Zilliqa’s pBFT gives finality to transactions, requiring no confirmations, which significantly reduces the storage requirements.
Unlike Ethereum, Zilliqa uses a non-Turing complete language for smart contracts, making it less prone to bugs, and more receptive to formal methods-based verification.
Ethereum is still exploring Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and sharding as alternatives to improve scalability. However, Zilliqa has already chosen, and implemented sharding as its approach towards solving blockchain scalability constraints, possibly allowing it to run high throughput applications long before Ethereum. Zilliqa has the first mover advantage in the arena of truly scalable blockchains.
As a consensus protocol, NEO uses delegated BFT (dBFT) that requires a sub-set of nodes, called book-keeping nodes, to run consensus on behalf of the entire network. These book-keeping nodes are also required to deposit and lock a sufficiently large collateral. The disadvantage of this approach is that if the number of book-keeping nodes is too large, it significantly reduces the liquidity from the market due to the locking up of a large collateral; and if the number of book-keeping nodes is too small, it reduces the degree of decentralization of the blockchain, making it less secure from attacks. On the other hand, Zilliqa uses pBFT for consensus, with a significantly large number of nodes that are not required to lock up any collateral. Therefore, Zilliqa’s consensus protocol reduces neither market liquidity, nor the degree of decentralization or security.
NEO deals with the challenge of scalability by running dBFT on a subset of the nodes, thereby reducing decentralization and security. Zilliqa solves the scalability challenge by using sharding the network and the transactions into parallel chains, each chain processing its own micro-block, to be merged into a final block. Thus, Zilliqa is truly scalable, while maintaining decentralization and security.
EOS uses delegated PoS (dPoS) as its consensus protocol, where a subset of 21 nodes, called block producers, are used to propose blocks. This does yield a high throughput with scalability, but induces significant centralization and security risks for the network. Zilliqa is scalable without compromising the decentralization or security of the blockchain.
The dPoS of EOS does not guarantee transaction finality, the way Zilliqa’s pBFT does.
TEAM AND ADVISORS Zilliqa’s team consists of highly renowned scientists, entrepreneurs and engineers with significant experience in the blockchain domain and cyber-security. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Zilliqa, Xinshu Dong, has a PhD in Computer Science from the National University of Singapore (NUS), and is a practitioner in building secure systems. He has led several national cyber-security projects in Singapore, and has extensively published his research in renowned international conferences. Prateek Saxena is the Chief Scientific Advisor for Zilliqa, and has a PhD in Computer Science from University of California, Berkeley. He is a research professor in computer science at NUS, and has received several premier awards such as the Top 10 Innovators under 35 (MIT TR35 Asia) in 2017. The advisory board of Zilliqa also includes the prominent names in the blockchain industry, like Loi Luu — Co-founder of Kyber Network, Vincent Zhou — Founding Partner of FBG Capital, Nicolai Oster — Partner at Bitcoin Suisse AG, and Alexander Lipton — Founder and CEO of StrongHold Labs. PROJECT ROADMAP The highlights of Zilliqa’s roadmap are as follows: * Zilliqa has already released public testnet v1.0 * Public testnet v1.5 release is scheduled for Q1 2018 * Public mainnet release is scheduled for Q2 2018 * dApps release scheduled for Q3 2018 Zilliqa has a very active roadmap ahead, with the biggest event being its mainnet launch. PRICE SPECULATION At the Token Generation Event (TGE), Zilliqa set the cap for contributors to 48,889 ETH, or US$ 22 million at a locked rate of US$ 450/ETH. Zilliqa’s tokens are called ‘Zillings’, or ZILs. ZIL price at the TGE was US$ 0.003877. Zilliqa has a finite supply of 21 billion tokens, of which only 60% (12.6 billion tokens) are generated at the TGE, and the remaining 40% (8.4 billion tokens) would be mining rewards over the next 10 years. The details on Zilliqa’s TGE can be found of Zilliqa’s official blog post regarding TGE. The market cap of Zilliqa has grown from about US$ 22 million at the TGE, to US$ 49 million as of this writing, due to the increase in ETH price. Zilliqa’s public mainnet release is scheduled for Q2 2018. Considering the improvements Zilliqa’s public blockchain protocol adds to the technology in terms of performance, security and governance, and the experience and competence of the team behind the Zilliqa project, there is a huge upside on the price potential of ZIL. In the short term, by the time Zilliqa’s public mainnet is released in Q2 2018, I think its market cap could easily be in the range of US$ 3 to 7 billion. With a circulating supply of 6.3 billion ZILs, this would mean ZIL price could be in the range of US$ 0.5 to 1.1, that is roughly 12,000 to 28,000% increase (120x to 280x) from the ICO price in US$ terms. In the long-term, it is next to impossible to predict ZIL price with any considerable level of certainty, due to the sheer number of factors that could influence the growth and adoption Zilliqa’s public blockchain. Any attempts to make such predictions would be merely speculative, and should be considered so. However, it would be fair to say that for any public blockchain platform that is able to truly scale with global adoption, has a large developer community, is one of the preferred blockchains to host high throughput dApps, and does all of this in a decentralized and secure manner, having a market cap in excess of US$ 100 billion in the long-term would be a reasonable prospect. The bottom line is that, for Zilliqa, truly, sky is the limit. And this is what makes Zilliqa’s future potential so exciting and worth keeping an eye on! Full disclosure: I am invested in Zilliqa for the long-term, and I plan to buy more when Zilliqa trading goes live. Hackernoon blog post:https://hackernoon.com/zilliqa-a-game-changer-when-it-comes-to-blockchain-scalability-4fb1c13b1b8a
Continue：Chinese Comments for《Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers.》
Yesterday,The article “Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers.” caused a lot debates here. For the further communication between China and west, I’ll conclude some informations about the article, then translate some of the Chinese comments & opinions on this article.
Let’s see what Chinese comments under the article (post on BitKan Chinese news page): Against 独行 If the writer does not want to see him nailed up on the pillar of humiliation, go learn some economics, plow through Satoshi’s whitepaper again esp. the economic logics in it. Also the writer needs to learn coding so as to avoid a mentality of a liberal art student. TBH your article is getting dramatic. 1. 1) Core never said the block size will stay at 1 MB, SegWit is a robust strategy at this moment. 2. 2) Your so-called HK consensus is nothing but a paper with seals from a few pools, a one-sided opinion. It’s not consensus. 3. 3) What an interesting conspiracy theory, you sound like the rest of the world is against China. How sick is that? Bitcoin has no national boundaries. lxq990061 Back in 1840 in San Francisco, miners got rich with gold. But many more joined the game later on and with more ppl leaving the west empty-handed. How tragic. This is history, just like the one happening with Bitcoin. It was the pubs and inns opened near the gold mines earned real money: like the platforms today. Devs at Core are just like the merchants back in the day sipping their tea and trash-talking. But Core is indeed stupid: an 8-year long decentralized system requires support from a 95%? Some serious shit in their head. 讨厌装逼犯 You guys trash talk everyday non-stop...be quiet! This kind of argument cannot convince anyone. Harsh words+personall attacks just make it more chaotic. Politics...parties...freedom...conspiracy: disgusting. And this kind of article? Who you can convince? This is not the day 1 of the debate. True decision makers already have it in their mind. You ordinary ppl can change nothing even if you are convinced. My guess is whoever writes this kind of story must be someone who enjoys being worshiped by ppl on top of the ranks of “revolution”. You just like to quench your own thirst for fame. Worst case has nothing to do with tech, it’s a match for computation power, capital and strength. System set that C.power decides so let it be. Bitcoin will take on its due course no matter what. The disgusting part is the incitation, the manipulation of ppl’s emotions, and cap everything “a matter of revolution”. We Chinese ppl know this too well. Scaling is no longer about tech, but winning. Is it meaningful? The shame is not with the devs, they (inl. Core and BU) contributed their wisdom and labor. The real shame is with you talkers who humiliate ppl. You are so good, why not show me your money? Bitcoin is a merely 10B system, go buy it. If you cannot, just don’t trash talk. idgui.com 1) lots of companies and apps are waiting for segwit, and OP is not against segwit, then https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ why not implement it in the easiest way? SF is quite close , as long as enough miners support. HF egwit delivers community splitting risks. 2) LN can be decentralized enough should there be enough LN nodes. It won’t be concentrated on a handful of nodes. We can implement some limits on the main chain if we see an inclination toward centralization, such as higher tx fee for big nodes to limit big centralized LN node. 3) Main chain tx fee won’t be ridiculously high. If it does, miners get RICH, no? now we have 4% in tx fee, raise by 25 times you get more reward from it than the block reward. Then it’s acceptable even now, let alone future. Big amount tx are few. Small amount can be offchain, on LN or on sidechains. 4) SegWit has been thoroughly tests, and it’s a SF, compatible to previous nodes. There won’t be a major issue. Any code has risks, can you call BU risk-free? It depends on the level of risk. Segwit SF is acceptable, at most rolling back to 0.13.0, and segwit can increase little by little, not a sudden change. BU’s HF is different, with risks of splitting the entire ecosystem. 5) Miners have freedom of voting, but do consider the interests at large. You must represent the interests of the entire ecosystem, at least try to. We need decentralized nodes and unified ecosystem. SF segwit needs to be activated under consensus, and we can wait. HF needs even greater consensus or we risk losing it all. If we cannot have enough consensus for either HF or SF segwit, then we should let the SF segwit happen, since it has no risks of destruction. Maybe I wrote it in bad order, let me edit it in the future. Don’t jump to conclusion OP. Segwit should be activated in the future. Support gjw Core knows nothing about the spirit of contract. They ignore their public ann. a few months ago. A direct scaling is the simplest and most effective way of solving our urgent problem. Why roll out this thing that requires long-time testing? To have a worldwide success for Bitcoin, you need to provide ppl with access at low costs. It’s just like Internet. Core either has a vicious intention or has no faith in Bitcoin. If one day Bitcoin is being used by 9 digits of ppl, the main chain block size cannot be enough even at 100 MB. Micro payment still needs to go through something like LN. What’s the meaning of keeping the block size at 1MB? 7 years ago the block size was set at 1MB, what’s the hardware like 7 years ago? What the growth of bandwidth and storage in 7 years? 10 years or 20 years from now? The main battlefield of Bitcoin is in China. We Chinese ppl should not be satisfied with mining a few coins or gamble on a few exchanges. Take the responsibility and obligation of contribution. But, words are so much cheaper than codes. We need advanced devs for the main battlefield. changyong I appreciate Jiang Zhuo’er’s main points, they coincide with my opinions on the Chengdu blockchain conference: 1. scaling, segwit and LN should all be implemented. 2.it is highly wrong to make the main chain a settlement network 3. LN and the main chain are for different purposes and should not be inter-placeable. 4. main chain jam is driving towards LN Matthew Effect and monopolies. 5. miner decision is most rational and trust-worthy 6. tech and propaganda monopolies are endangering the whole system 7. SF increases long-term systemic debt and risks A supplementary 8 points 1. blocksize cannot meet with the market demand for a long time---this is no less significant of a tech loophole. So a HF is a worthy action. 2. HF is an important instrument for Bitcoin to metabolize. Demonizing HF is suicidal. 3. The lack of incentives for devs and the centralization of tech are the paramount systemic risks at this moment 4. BU is a good start for competition, which will eliminate tech centralization. 5. HF scaling will not change the current landscape of profits and power, turning the main chain into a settlement network will. The latter carries great risks of Bitcoin failure. 6. Demonizing HF is a coverup for the changes and risks associated with the settlement network roadmap. 7. Democracy of Bitcoin requires ration, not loyalty and passion from the Bitcoiners, else, we are en route dictatorship. 8. For the sake of the wealth and energy you put into this, plz resort to reason, not blind worshipping and personal attacks. myx If you can compete with confidence, do compete under the same level of consensus. Bitcoin is the flapship of cryptos. An easy HF and an influential forked chain in the aftermath can be catastrophic. Miners can benefit in the short run after the spilitting. But in the long run, we all lose. A lowered threshold in anticipation of an easier fork is much worse than staying put. Based on Boss Jiang’s statement, 95% consensus can produce a 5% forked chain...then there will always be minority miners forking. In the end, the recognition of Bitcoin comes from users. Self-important forks by some miners are nothing but Alts. We have enough alts, no? So, 95%+ consensus is the only way to maintain unification. A coin without support from most of the users is an alt! Miners do get to decide, but the ultimate right is with the users’ recognition! If a 95%+ consensus is with a solution, then the rest minority do not matter. So, a solution without a high degree of consensus in a way is splitting the ecosystem. If BU dares not to bring up a 95% threshold, and in your own words, if a 51% HF is enough for a HF...you will end up splitting the ecosystem! Boss Jiang is a miner, and he feels he’s investing bigly, and he gets to decide. But in fact you are just for profit, not some Samaritan. Miners are just making profits on the most-recognized coin. Nothing to do with ethics. But a fair competition, by your own words, must be on the same criteria. Just like the 270 electoral votes in US presidential election. A common threshold. So, if BU wants to compete with segwit, do so under the same level of consensus. Any solution under a 95% consensus is just trolling for your own cowardice! indexindex The scaling debate involves 1)scaling for Bitcoin’s future and 2)breaking dev monopoly. Dev is the easiest part to control than hashing powers and users, literally the weakest part in the decentralization course of Bitcon. Spend 7 or 8 digits of USD on core devs, then you can control a multi-billion level product...that’s a good bargin for numerous capitals. Devs must realize that they can be abandoned should they do harm to Bitcoin in exchange of their own interests. Not just Core, but every dev team should understand this. BS’ investment must go burn, so as to make it a good example for future players. Others Tips: ID name “sfire” is the writer Jiang Zhuoer. bikanyong to sfire Hi Jiang I got 2 questions for you: 1. 1) apart from using high tx fee to chase tx to the LN, what’s the highlight of LN per se that draws tx? 2. 2) You mentioned LN will become a giant-dominated market based on Matthew Effect. Is our main chain facing the same risks? sfire to bikanyong Yes. LN is a secondary network with no need to broadcast network-wide. So LN has more frequent tx than the main chain. Small amount fast payment can be allowed. There is a price for not broadcasting network-wide: serious centralization risks (as seen in the article). So it can only be used for auxiliary purposes, but not as a foundation. The main chain is free from this risk becoz all miners on the main chain are equal. Gov may shut down 99% of the miners while the remaining 1% could still be handling tx. LN differentiates nodes with big ones and small ones. In the end, the big ones may end up huge and be banned by the gov. With the remaining allowed un-compliant small nodes, you cannot (very possibly) find a route of transfer in the LN, causing you failures in transfers. bikanyongto sfire You mean: Nodes on the main chain are equal, while in the LN, big nodes are more powerful than the small ones. Or put it another way: the nodes on the current main chain are inter-dependent, while they could get competitive against each other on the LN.---is it ok to put it like this? sfire to bikanyong It’s not that big nodes on the LN have more power, but connects more users. E.g. many ppl may, for the sake of their rate and service, connect to a giant “Coin-Pay or Coin-Pal” kind of node. If they want to transfer to users on another node called “Coin-Wechat”, they have to go through a route provided by “Coin-Pal”. Then, the giant node “Coin-Pal” bans you, leaving you in de facto ban from transfers to most ppl on the LN. kok99999 to bikanyong LN changes the topology of the network, and changes the whole game. 独行 Just becoz you need to enlarge the userbase, you need to scale up? It’s hilarious. The transfer of tx requires cost. No matter how wide is the highway, you don’t charge ppl, you will have a heave traffic. Via the market’s hand, only big amount tx are allowed on the chain---this does not affect the liquidity of onchain assets. sfire to 独行 You can go offer some advice to the gov and ask them not to build up our infrastructure, since it’s so costy. Just charge ppl money, how convenient is that? Only luxury cars are allowed on the road....this does not affect the vitality of the city. wz to 独行 What you are saying is not market’s hand. Leaving ppl with no choice is a market behavior? Free competition is the market’s hand. 无名 to 独行 No hard facts other than trashing ppl...no reasoning...these resemble your Core masters. BTC专业工 I just wanna say: Hail to Multi-Party system! One-Party Dictatorship is doomed. mellowtone Support miners, support PoW and computational-power-consensus is the real consensus. pyjx306 If tx fee goes up, I will quit. savage Since Core is so determined to castrate the main chain and revolution miners out, why did they set the 95% threshold? Core has no computation power, and they are so confident that miners will load their heads with enough shit and support Core? sfire It’s just a routine to set the 95% threshold for SF. If Core does not use the figure, the anti-Core voice will only grow, furthering their success rate down. amo1998 95% could be of more complicated reasons. I think BS should have taken into consideration that they control at least 5% of the C.power. (S pool and BTCC pool). If I were BS, I’d have a contingency plan for worst-case scenario. Even 95% means we fail, we BS will not allow for a HF. We can also bash you from a moral high ground and accuse the onchain scailing side. caitong I cannot tell which one is better, HF first or SegWit first...both seemed to be practical and dangerous. But both sides have their own political agenda---that’s for sure. We avg. Joes prefer that, no matter what solution taken or risks what come along, just march on. We cannot stay here and die. wz No development=you will be taken by someone else. The network jam is significantly hindering its future. SegWit and LN cannot be replacements for a HF, Core knows that, but they still want to use them to replace a HF solution. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency out there. No user, no value. yangzi666 Still, no matter what solution, if we have 2 chains and 2 Bitcoins, there will be chaos esp. for newbies. Miners and exchanges will take side and cause even greater chaos. Attention ppl: those were bashing Bitcoin with short positions all day long are now also in favor of THAT solution! Newton had it: I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people! HF is not a good solution at this moment. No matter which one, there must be no risk of forking into 2 chains---that qualifies an option on the table. wz SegWit and LN are not the replacement of a HF. Core has their own interests. You ostrich ppl just keep your heads in the sand, the risks won’t go away. yangzi666 reply wz 1)I am no osrich. I will not be speaking here if I had my head in the sand, esp. at the risks of your bashings. 2)I oppose the risks of Bitcoin forking into 2 coins: you need to live longer to have the experience of humanity. 3)Seriously suggest you guys use some mild words, don’t be so dramatic. Just get your opinions clear no matter what you are proposing. Don’t just attack other ppl and their solutions. And plz don’t use harsh words. I believe we miners have wisdom. Given time, just wait and see the chart. 睿思通-专注比特币交易平台开发 Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards. nodouble Scaling is what all users want. We just have different opinions on the solution we choose. It’s hard to judge Core’s manipulation, but they do oppose a simple direct scaling. They broke the deal with pools and manipulated the public opinion. You do see these as facts. You know about IT and finance, and probably with your butt on finance. You earn monopoly profits that others cannot touch. Bitcoin is the genius, the genesis of this sick market. Core’s segwit and LN are in fact copying financial sector’s monopoly nature to Bitcoin, and with an overly engineered tech threshold to solidify the position of interest groups like Blockstream. The scaling of the main chain, a market that naturally embraces users, will bring the disillusionment of LN, a market naturally forcing users. The conflict of opinions is in fact the fight of power of at a certain level. For Bitcoin, it’s Satoshi’s brilliant design and judgment that has it: we let the miners decide. This is also most reasonable in reality. Like you said, should we realize it, we are all happy. idgui.com 1) I’m pro segwit and LN, segwit solves a lot of historical problems and improves efficiency; LN provides greater room for timely confirmations and high frequency tx. [reply] good, welcome for your choice on segwit+LN. It’s good improvement for the development of the ecosystem. Segwit has a good structure for app developments. LN can realized second-level confirmation and low tx fee that everyone wants. 2) Miners being trust-worthy don’t mean all miners can tell the future. Miners are trust-worthy because they see profits. They analyze the interests of all parties. Their behavioral pattern is predictable. [reply] There are short-term interests and long-term interests. Not all miners are limited to those before their eyes or those in their dreams. Only when interests short-term and long-term are consistent can they be predicted. But you cannot do that now. Also, different miners have different standards of judgement. 3) ETH HFed many times, not produced a forked chain only once, why? Because this very HF violates the basic principle of cryptocurrency: immutability of blockchain. That’s why ppl reject ETH and would welcome ETC. Then you have trades and markets and price and miners. Previously loyal miners can turn. That’s why I say Chandler’s statement was irrational. Just don’t talk about loyalty and friendship when it comes to cryptos, just talk about interests. [reply] There’re active and forced HFs. We had one in our history. Along with the later HFs of ETH, they are all bug-fixes that serves only good. But the in the ETH/ETC case, the HF was to find the stolen coins, not for a bug fix: an active HF. Active HF has great potential for splitting the ecosystem, and forced ones are safe. HF scaling is apparently an active HF. Blocksize limit is not an imperative bug fix target; and HF scaling is not necessarily good for everyone, at least it raise the bar to run a full node. 4) Landscape of interests: I’m saying the interests and decision-making patterns of all parties in the system (miners, corps, users, investors, devs) stay the same, not that all interests should remain the same. HF scaling produces no change to the original running mechanism, so the landscape does not change. Even if ETH forked into 2, their interests are in the same old landscape and an Alt relationship between each other. [reply] You are not aware of the dangers and harms of a split ecosystem. You should read some other articles first. A split is not just about simply see another Alt, it’s overwhelming. END Thanks for our translator David.
In 2017, the BCH block size was increased and ever since then, it’s been raised to 32MB. Besides having a much larger block size, the BCH chain has seen a myriad of improvements during the last three years.. Bitcoin Cash developers have increased to the block size to 32MB, re-enabled old Satoshi opcodes, added version bits voting, and increased the default datacarriersize to 220 bytes. But the great block size debate highlights the inescapable political element lurking in the technical constitution of Bitcoin. Once mainly technological questions of scaling and centralization The Bitcoin Cash fork stemmed from the multi-year scaling debate over the 1MB block size limit, and the BTC chain still maintains that consensus limit. In 2017, the BCH block size was increased and ever since then, it’s been raised to 32MB. Video - Bitcoin Q and A Scaling and the Block Size Debate In this talk in Berlin, Andreas looks at the inner structure of bitcoin and how high-level financial and trust applications are composed from smaller elements. For now, the size of Bitcoin's blocks remains a touchy subject, as many view it as controversial, particularly after the hash wars of mid-November 2018, when Bitcoin Cash had a hard fork which resulted in a blockchain split and gave birth to Bitcoin SV. The incident is also believed to be responsible for the second market crash in 2018, while
Six Months Later Bitcoin Community Finally Debates How to Activate
Bitcoin Scaling Debate - Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, Phil Potter, Petrov, Lombrozo - Dec 2016 ... Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. Bitcoin Q&A: Scaling and the block size debate - Duration: 4:46. aantonop 13,705 views. ... Bitcoin Scaling Debate - Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, Phil Potter, Petrov, ... Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin's recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin's ... However, SegWit was ultimately the culmination of a community debate on block size spanning years, which was mostly resolved with the Bitcoin Cash fork. To avoid similar controversy, two different ... The debate which caused the creation of BCH had to do with the problem of scalability; the Bitcoin network has a stringent limit on the size of blocks: one megabyte (MB). BCH increases the block...