GitHub - jameshilliard/bitcoin.org: Bitcoin.org website

Multi-Stage Merge-Mine Headers Hard-Fork BIP | James Hilliard | Feb 24 2016 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Multi-Stage Merge-Mine Headers Hard-Fork BIP | James Hilliard | Feb 24 2016 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

[Megathread] On August 21, 2017, a new altcoin called SegCoin (BSG) will be created using Bitcoin's transaction history. Bitcoin itself continues to function normally, as Bitcoin cash (BCH)

What is happening?
In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 21, 2017 a new altcoin will be activated from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Segcoin" (BSG) or "Bitseg" depending on which wallet/exchange you ask. In order to avoid confusion with actual Bitcoin and other altcoins, we recommend readers refer to the new altcoin as "Segcoin" (BSG)
As with all altcoins, Segcoin is technically off-topic for the /btc subreddit. However, segcoin will be created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of segcoin with some effort. Your Bitcoins are just as safe as they were before the chain split, but you should take care not to compromise your private keys if you wish to retrieve segcoin. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your segcoin, please be aware that consolidating your UTXOs will impact your privacy on both chains.
In order to help readers navigate this confusing situation and minimize disruption of relevant content, /btc has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Segcoin. If you are wondering how to retrieve your new altcoin holdings, please read the discussion thoroughly as your questions may already have been answered. If you don't see a similar question, please be sure to mention your wallet method and preferred exchange so that other readers can help address your concerns. You are also invited to submit new threads to the /Segcoin subreddit if you so choose.
If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Segwit coin:” An Interview with Segwit lead developer Peiter Wuille
A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Segcoin” (and Selling It) is a must-read for anyone feeling particularly lost.
But I thought we avoided a chain split?
For those of you who thought we avoided a chain split with the activation of BIP91 a couple weeks ago, here's a very loose summary of what happened on the Segwit (BIP141, BIP148, BIP91) front:
*Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
*Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
*Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
*Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
*BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
*Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
*Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
*BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Segcoin but with less safety precautions regarding replay protection
Despite all the progress we're making in scaling Bitcoin both on-chain and off-chain, the Segcoin crew has decided to part ways with the Bitcoin project by creating a new altcoin. The key differences are that they are attempting to gut natural block size growth from their forked client, as well as increasing the risk of mining cartels, development centralisation and high fee transactions
/btc wishes Segcoin a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!
submitted by ConalR to btc [link] [comments]

The Hong Kong Agreement that has totally been breached by the Bitcoin Core Contributors.

On February 21st, 2016, in Hong Kong’s Cyberport, representatives from the bitcoin industry and members of the development community have agreed on the following points:
Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
The undersigned support this roadmap.
Together, we are:
Kevin Pan - Manager - AntPool
Anatoly Legkodymov - CEO - A-XBT
Larry Salibra - Bitcoin Association Hong Kong
Leonhard Weese - Bitcoin Association Hong Kong
Cory Fields - Bitcoin Core Contributor
Johnson Lau - Bitcoin Core Contributor
Luke Dashjr - Bitcoin Core Contributor
Matt Corallo - Bitcoin Core Contributor
Peter Todd - Bitcoin Core Contributor
Kang Xie - Bitcoin Roundtable
Phil Potter - Chief Strategy Officer - Bitfinex
Valery Vavilov - CEO - BitFury
Alex Petrov - CIO - BitFury
Jihan Wu - Co-CEO - Bitmain
Micree Zhan - Co-CEO - Bitmain
James Hilliard - Pool/Farm Admin - BitmainWarranty
Yoshi Goto - CEO - BitmainWarranty
Alex Shultz - CEO - BIT-X Exchange
Han Solo - CEO - Blockcloud
Adam Back - President - Blockstream
Bobby Lee - CEO - BTCC
Samson Mow - COO - BTCC
Robin Yao - CTO - BW
Obi Nwosu - Managing Director - Coinfloor
Mark Lamb - Founder - Coinfloor
Wang Chun - Admin - F2Pool
Marco Streng - CEO - Genesis Mining
Marco Krohn - CFO - Genesis Mining
Oleksandr Lutskevych - CEO - GHash.IO & CEX.IO
Wu Gang - CEO - HaoBTC
Leon Li - CEO - Huobi
Zhang Jian - Vice President - Huobi
Eric Larchevêque - CEO - Ledger
Jack Liao - CEO - LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange
Star Xu - CEO - OKCoin
Jack Liu - Head of International - OKCoin
Guy Corem - CEO - Spondoolies-Tech
Pindar Wong - Sponsor
submitted by singularity87 to btc [link] [comments]

PSA: (non) existing Hong Kong agreement expires officially TODAY!

CURRENT DATE IN HONG KONG: SATURDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2017. THE HK AGREEMENT HAS EXPIRED.
Miners, Your Turn!

"The undersigned support this roadmap. Together, we are:

Kevin Pan Manager - AntPool

Anatoly Legkodymov CEO - A-XBT

Larry Salibra - Bitcoin Association Hong Kong

Leonhard Weese - Bitcoin Association Hong Kong

Cory Fields - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Johnson Lau - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Luke Dashjr - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Matt Corallo - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Peter Todd - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Kang Xie - Bitcoin Roundtable

Phil Potter - Chief Strategy Officer Bitfinex

Valery Vavilov - CEO BitFury

Alex Petrov - CIO BitFury

Jihan Wu - Co-CEO Bitmain

Micree Zhan - Co-CEO Bitmain

James Hilliard - Pool/Farm Admin BitmainWarranty

Yoshi Goto - CEO BitmainWarranty

Alex Shultz - CEO BIT-X Exchange

Han Solo - CEO Blockcloud

Adam Back - President Blockstream -> Individual -> President Blockstream

Bobby Lee - CEO BTCC

Samsung Mow - COO BTCC -> Professional Twitter Troll -> Former COO BTCC 😕

Robin Yao - CTO BW

Obi Nwosu - Managing Director Coinfloor

Mark Lamb - Founder Coinfloor

Wang Chun - Admin F2Pool

Marco Streng - CEO Genesis Mining

Marco Krohn - CFO Genesis Mining

Oleksandr Lutskevych - CEO GHash.IO & CEX.IO

Wu Gang - CEO HaoBTC

Leon Li - CEO Huobi

Zhang Jian - Vice President Huobi

Eric Larchevêque - CEO Ledger

Jack Liao - CEO LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange

Star Xu - CEO OKCoin

Jack Liu - Head of International OKCoin

Guy Corem - CEO Spondoolies-Tech

Pindar Wong - Sponsor"

source
background story
submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Arsonist James Hilliard u/lightsword (at BitClub) does his malleability attack, and firefighter Greg Maxwell u/nullc (Blockstream CTO) begs people on r\bitcoin to adopt SegWit. SegWit only SEMI-fixes malleability - but its "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) would PERMANENTLY solidify Blockstream's power

Note: Yesterday a post of mine was censored on btc. And now today another post of mine was censored on btc, with the public modlog saying "keyword spam". Below is a copy of my post from today which was censored on btc.
Maybe btc is trying to tell me I should stop spending so much time posting, and I should relax and start enjoying my life spending some of my coins on hookers and blow? LOL!
The only miners supporting the unpopular SegWit are associated with Blockstream and/or corrupt.
A pattern is starting to emerge among the players supporting SegWit:
James Hilliard's "malleability attack" and Greg Maxwell's "solution" are a nice example of "collaboration" - between an arsonist and a firefighter
In the recent "malleability attack" on Bitcoin, perpetrator James Hilliard u/lightsword (at BitClub) can be viewed as playing the role of the vandal or "arsonist".
Now, right on schedule, along comes Greg Maxwell u/nullc (Blockstream CTO) offering to play the role of the "firefighter".
Greg's recent post on the censored, low-information subreddit r\bitcoin, begging people to support SegWit because of BitClub's "malleability attack", is merely his latest, desperate - and most cynical - attempt to get people to accept the unpopular SegWit, with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
We should not fall for this pathetic attempt use a "malleability attack" to panic people into adopting the flawed SegWit.
SegWit is not the helpful "solution" that Greg claims it is.
The real goal of SegWit-as-a-soft-fork with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) is actually to let Blockstram hijack Bitcoin development forever - due to precisely the irreversible nature of SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
And since u/null is of course terrified of discussing the technical aspects of SegWit with intelligent users and coders, where did he post his latest pathetic desperate propaganda and lies begging people to adopt the SegWit poison-pill trojan-horse?
Where else: On his sad little echo-chamber of yes-men and low-information losers: the censored non-forum r\bitcoin, where nearly everyone who's actually knowledgeable about Bitcoin's technology, economics and politics have long since been silenced and banned - including banning posts quoting Satoshi.
As usual, Greg is spreading FUD and lies on a censored forum in his ongoing, failing attempts to help Blockstream hijack Bitcoin.
He should be ashamed of himself for this latest attempt on his part to hijack Bitcoin for his desperate and failing shitty startup Blockstream.
His proposed "solution" to the problem - the poorly coded SegWit - would actually be a poison-pill trojan-horse for Bitcoin.
SegWit is the worst approach possible to fixing malleability and quadratic hashing - because the incompetent/corrupt Blockstream devs insisted on doing it as an unnecessary and dangerous soft fork - because they're afraid of the "full-node referendum" of a hard fork - because they know that with a hard fork, we'd vote their asses out.
SegWit would needlessly make all transactions "anyone-can-spend" - which means that if Bitcoin were to adopt SegWit, SegWit could never be un-adopted. SegWit would cement Blockstream's control of Bitcoin - permanently.
As this lengthy technical article has already explained in detail, SegWit as a soft fork is the most radical and irresponsible proposed change to Bitcoin in its 8 years of history.
And we already have a much better solution than SegWit: FlexTrans.
SegWit bundles together three not-very-helpful "fixes" into a dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH):
SegWit offers:
The problem with SegWit is that it would deploy these three low-priority "fixes" via a "soft fork" which would make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
Why is Blockstream pushing SegWit with its dangerous, irreversible dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH)?
As has been discussed many, many times before (on uncensored less-censored forums like btc), SegWit is incredibly dangerous for Bitcoin - but wonderful for Blockstream, because:
This is why Blockstream wants SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - because:
SegWit would give Blockstream permanent control over the Bitcoin protocol.
This is the real goal of SegWit: permanently cementing Blockstream's power.
SegWit isn't about blocksize (as if SegWit's centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize were any better than Core's existing centrally-planned 1MB blocksize anyways - puh-leeze!! BU is the real, long-term blocksize solution, because BU gives us market-based blocksizes, now and in the future!).
SegWit isn't even really about malleability and quadratic hashing.
SegWit is about power. Giving permanent power over Bitcoin to Blockstream.
Oscar Wilde once said:
"Everything in the world is about sex - except sex. Sex is about power."
Along the same lines, the blocksize debate is not about the blocksize. Everything that Blockstream does is actually about power and control.
Don't look at their words.
Look at their code.
The dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) is what makes SegWit so dangerous.
If we were to actually implement SegWit with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH), it would set a precedent that can't be rolled back or phased out.
Those "anyone-can-spend" SegWit transactions would be in the blockchain from then on, and any attempt to roll back SegWit would leave those transactions vulnerable - literally spendable by anyone.
So don't fall for soothing language like "soft fork" and "opt in". Call SegWit what it really is: a dangerous, irreversible, poison-pill, trojan-horse
Blockstream AXA-funded propagandists like CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and their Minister of Propaganda Alex Berg u/brg444 and their low-information supporters love to use soothing words like "soft fork" and "opt-in" and "fully tested" when talking about SegWit.
But soothing words like "soft fork" and "opt-in" are just more of the usual propaganda and lies from Greg and Blockstream and the central bankers behind them who are trying to hijack Bitcoin, because SegWit would have the following disastrous consequences:
SegWit is about power. Permanent power for Blockstream.
This is Blockstream's real goal with SegWit. It's not about "offering" a pitiful, inadequate centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize - as if we were even interested in a dev team offering us a blocksize increase when we can control the blocksize ourselves with BU anyways.
SegWit isn't even about fixing malleability or quadratic hashing time.
Behind all the hand waving and "arson" by James Hilliard u/lightsword (at Bitclub) and "firefighting" by Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/null - behind Blockstream's offers to "help" us solve problems which they themselves have caused - more and more people are discovering what Blockstream is really up to with SegWit.
SegWit is a poison pill, it's a trojan horse, it's a coup by Blockstream attempting to hijack Bitcoin development forever.
Unsurprisingly, over half of the hashpower supporting SegWit turns out to actually be coming from two miners associated with Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC.
The Bitcoin community knows that SegWit is dangerous, being pushed on us by the central bankers behind Blockstream, in order to hijack Bitcoin.
But fortunately, we don't need SegWit. We can better solutions: Bitcoin Unlimited and FlexTrans.
BU and FlexTrans are safe and simple upgrades - without SegWit's dangerous, irreversible dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
Bitcoin Unlimited offers market-based blocksizes.
And Bitcoin Unlimited already works.
In fact, Bitcoin Unlimited is already mining over 30% of the blocks on the network - versus only 25% being mined by SegWit, which is being rejected by miners.
Core/Blockstream's centralized, fiat-funded "roadmap" is a dead-end. BU and FlexTrans are the future.
Core/Blockstream's centralized, fiat-funded "roadmap" would lead to delays, congestion, high fees, low adoption, and less money for users and miners - and (they hope) big profits and centralized control for the central bankers behind Blockstream.
Meanwhile, BU and FlexTrans are the real, decentralized, permissionless on-chain scaling solutions offering a bright future for Bitcoin - helping real users with real use cases in the real marketplace - based on simple, safe, future-proof code - without the poison-pill, trojan-horse of Blockstream's dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
Now the Bitcoin community no longer has to be forced into accepting Core's too-little, too-late scaling stalling roadmap and their shitty soft-fork SegWit - which is designed to hurt Bitcoin and help Blockstream.
The Bitcoin community now has a clear and superior roadmap to fix the real urgent problems in Bitcoin, in order of actual priority decided by us, not decided by the bankers behind Blockstream.
The Bitcoin community's market-based (not Blockstream-based) roadmap will lead to better code, lower fees, higher price, more adoption, and more profits for miners (based on higher price and more transactions per block), because:
Below are the specific next steps our the roadmap - which the community has been developing in a decentralized and permissionless way, to support safe and simple on-chain scaling and improvements for Bitcoin - now and in the future:
(1) Deploy a simple protocol upgrade supporting market-based blocksizes: Bitcoin Unlimited. The network of miners is well on the way to making this happen - with 30% of blocks now being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited much to the chagrin of Greg and his low-information, brainwashed supporters panicking on the censored cesspool of r\bitcoin.
(2) Deploy a simple protocol upgrade with a simple and safe fix for malleability and quadratic hashing, while also supporting a future-proof tag-based format (similar to JSON and HTML) for possible future needed changes: FlexTrans - supporting future upgrades without the need for forking.
Greg is afraid to talk to the real Bitcoin community - so he only talks now in the echo-chamber of r\bitcoin.
He knows that the real Bitcoin community is rejecting his centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize and his poison-pill trojan-horse SegWit.
Greg can whine and moan and spew his usual lies and propaganda all he wants on the censored cesspool of r\bitcoin - and his low-information losers can chime in to soothe his sadness and bask in their illusion of "consensus", where there is actually none - because the real community and network and market have already started routing around Blockstream's fiat-funded censorship and lies.
They are a dwindling minority who are totally out of touch with the way Bitcoin actually works and totally out of touch with that the Bitcoin community actually wants.
The latest example of their consfusion is Core devTM Blue Matt Corrallo's idiotic tweet today - where he shows his total ignorance of how Nakamoto Consensus works - thinking that the 21 million coin cap is preserved by a centralized dev team locking down the code - and not through the economic wisdom of the market players a whole, based on the economic incentives of Nakamoto Consensus.
Consensus has been forming this whole time - behind their backs, as they continue to stick their heads in the ground.
Consensus has been forming this whole time using the mechanisms developed by Satoshi, while Greg and his low-information loser supporters continue to sink into denial and desperation, with their back-room deals and broken promises and their transparent lies and their centrally planned blocksizes which have crippled the network.
They can enjoy their centralized shit-coin SegWit and continue to commiserate on their censored shit-forum r\bitcoin - while they stand by watching helplessly as our smaller but superior dev teams continue to communicate on more-open forums, providing real solutions for real users needing real scaling and real decentralization in the real marketplace - as we continue to realize Satoshi's design for "p2p eletronic cash".
They made their bed, now let them lie in it. They're too afraid to even talk about their plans on more-open forums now - because they can't face the truth, and they know they would be destroyed by community they have repeatedly lied to and betrayed.
Even with all their fiat and the power of incumbency, they're losing because of their lies and their crappy code.
The Bitcoin community is seeing through their lies, and rejecting their centralized control and propaganda, and we're coalescing and forming consensus around a simpler, safer and more future-proof roadmap: starting with Bitcoin Unlimited.
So:
Bitcoin Unlimited will succeed and SegWit will fail - because nobody wants the crappy code that Greg and Blockstream are trying to force on us: SegWit's totally inadequate 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize, and SegWit's dangerous and irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
Real users want to control our own blocksize.
And real coders know that we don't need make our coins "anyone-can-spend" simply to fix a trivial non-problem like malleability and a minor problem like quadratic hashing time.
So let Greg and Blockstream continue to cripple their code and get cheered on by their sad little echo-chamber of low-information supporters - aided and abetted by their collaborators at BitFury and BTCC and by the arsonist buddy at BitClub - while they continue to destroy their coin and their community - with their central planning and censorship and lies and their crippled crappy code.
Meanwhile:
And we will continue to adopt Bitcoin Unlimited - providing on-scaling for Bitcoin - using market-based blocksizes.
submitted by ydtm to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Scaling Proposal Segwit2x Moves Ahead With Initial Code Release

http://www.coindesk.com/first-look-bitcoin-scaling-proposal-segwit2x-gets-alpha-release/
The working group behind the Segwit2x bitcoin scaling proposal has announced that the first version of its code is now ready for review and testing.
As such, the release provides the market with a first look at the technology underlying one of the most broadly supported bids to enhance the network. Announced in May as an "agreement" that united miners and startups, Segwit2x is an alternative technology roadmap to one proposed by Bitcoin Core, the network's open-source developer group.
It has since emerged as a frequent subject of praise, criticism and discussion.
However, in what could be a promising sign, Segwit2x could become a moderate option that helps to avoid a contentious network split, and it looks like it could end up being somewhat compatible with an alternative proposal, the user-activated soft fork (UASF) BIP 148, which, as coded, will activate on 1st August.
The news is notable because earlier this week any compatibility between the two proposals seemed less likely – a discordance that raised fears of a split of the blockchain into two competing assets.
The development became apparent on Wednesday, when bitcoin developer James Hilliard submitted a change request, along with a code change that would reduce the time it takes for mining pools to lock in the update.
On GitHub, Hilliard said:
"This should reduce the chance of a conflict with BIP 148."
By reducing that time, mining pools will have one (or maybe two) three-day periods in which they can lock-in a controversial code change called Segregated Witness (SegWit) by signaling support using the SegWit2x software before the UASF occurs on August 1st. Though, it's unclear if mining pools will decide to do so.
The request was well-received, being met with several 'ACKs' – developer shorthand for 'agreed', and a sign of approval.
Firmer timelines
The alpha release of SegWit2x includes a working version of the software, which combines two changes, the scaling optimization SegWit and an increased 2MB block-size parameter.
The increase to 2MB is now scheduled for three months after SegWit activates, according to an email from BitGo CEO Mike Belshe. Prior to this, it's been less clear (even to some SegWit2x participants) when the 2MB hard fork would take place.
"Segwit2x development has been moving quickly according to plan, and the project is in good shape," Belshe said, in the message to the working group.
The 2MB block size has long been a point of contention, partially because it could lead to a blockchain split if not everyone agrees to upgrade to the new blockchain code. Further, some in the industry have already suggested they don't plan to.
However, SegWit2x has won the support of most major bitcoin companies and mining firms, in total representing over 80% of bitcoin's hash rate. (Though it remains unclear how reliable this support will be owing partly to fatigue around the issue).
With the alpha version out, the wider community now gets to review and test the software. The release also includes a new bitcoin testnet that developers can use to put the software through its paces and identify any bugs.
Testing phase
Developers can trial the software using the new test network, called testnet5, for the next two weeks.
"We are planning to conduct rounds of testing against the new testnet5 including everyone from the working group who would like to participate," BitPay senior developer Justin Langston said in another email to the working group.
The plan for these rounds is to simulate the code's deployment lifecycle, from signaling support for SegWit to activating the 2MB block-size parameter.
These rounds of testing and review are aimed to help avoid any future network problems, such as, in a worst-case scenario, the loss of users' bitcoin.
In the email, Langston wrote:
"My perspective is limited. We need your feedback on what tests would be essential for your company to adequately assess applicable risks and be prepared to deploy on livenet, signaling accordingly, when the time comes."
Security loose ends?
Feedback on SegWit2x's plan has already been rolling in.
One working group participant argued there is potential for 'replay attacks' in the event of a hard fork. Replay attacks, in the event of a split leaving the community with two bitcoin tokens, could allow users to accidentally spend their bitcoin on both networks.
This confusion happened last summer when ethereum split into two coins, leading some companies to lose money.
The participant argued that protection from this confusing and potentially dangerous issue is needed within Segwit2x's code.
Some Bitcoin Core developers have also criticized Segwit2x's development timeline as being too short, because it often takes a significant amount of time to catch all errors associated with bitcoin code changes. SegWit itself was tested for over a year before it was launched.
So far, though, SegWit2x developers haven't skipped a beat, saying the project will continue to move forward along the original timeline, with the beta release scheduled for 30th June. On 21st July, users will be able to run and signal the fully vetted software, according to the group.
Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which helped organize the SegWit2x proposal and has an ownership stake in both BitGo and BitPay.
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Multi-Stage Merge-Mine Headers Hard-Fork BIP | James Hilliard | Feb 24 2016

James Hilliard on Feb 24 2016:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/340
BIP: ?
Title: 2016 Multi-Stage Merge-Mine Headers Hard-Fork
Author: James Hilliard
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-02-23
==Abstract==
Use a staged hard fork to implement a headers format change that is
merge mine incompatible along with a timewarp to kill the previous
chain.
==Specification==
We use a block version flag to activate this fork when 3900 out of the
previous 4032 blocks have this the version flag set. This flag locks
in both of the below stages at the same time.
Merge Mine Stage: The initial hard fork is implemented using a merge
mine which requires that the original pre-fork chain be mined with a
generation transaction that creates no new coins in addition to not
containing any transactions. Additionally we have a consensus rule
that requires that ntime be manipulated on the original chain to
artificially increase difficulty and hold back the original chain so
that all non-upgraded clients can never catch up with current time.
The artificial ntime is implemented as a consensus rule for blocks in
the new chain.
Headers Change Stage: This is the final stage of the hard fork where
the header format is made incompatible with merge mining, this is
activated ~50,000 blocks after the Merge Mine Stage and only at the
start of the 2016 block difficulty boundary.
==Motivation==
There are serious issues with pooled mining such as block withhold
attacks that can only be fixed by making major changes to the headers
format.
There are a number of other desirable header format changes that can
only be made in a non-merge mine compatible way.
There is a high risk of there being two viable chains if we don't have
a way to permanently disable the original chain.
==Rationale==
Our solution is to use a two stage hard fork with a single lock in period.
The first stage is designed to kill off the previous chain by holding
back ntime to artificially increase network difficulty on the original
chain to the point where it would be extremely difficult to mine the
2016 blocks needed to trigger a difficulty adjustment. This also makes
it obvious to unupgraded clients that they are not syncing properly
and need to upgrade.
By locking in both stages at the same time we ensure that any clients
merge mining are also locked in for the headers change stage so that
the original chain is dead by the time the headers change takes place.
We timewarp over a year of merge mining to massively increase the
difficulty on the original chain to the point that it would be
incredibly expensive to reduce the difficulty enough that the chain
would be able to get caught up to current time.
==Backward Compatibility==
This hardfork will permanently disable all nodes, both full and light,
which do not explicitly add support for it.
However, their security will not be compromised due to the implementation.
To migrate, all nodes must choose to upgrade, and miners must express
supermajority support.
==Reference Implementation==
TODO
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

07-21 18:38 - '[quote] then why did the most influential leaders all agree to do a hardfork with a year lead up time? / [quote] [link] / Why did all these people disagree with you? / What changed u/theymos ? why is is more dangerous no...' by /u/AnonymousRev removed from /r/Bitcoin within 253-258min

'''
this sort of hardfork probably couldn't happen in today's Bitcoin
then why did the most influential leaders all agree to do a hardfork with a year lead up time?
The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
[link]1
Why did all these people disagree with you?
What changed theymos ? why is is more dangerous now then ever?
Is it because of the bitch fit people had when miners mined classic blocks anyway? is the real danger you loosing control? and not really economic dangers of non full nodes.
It is really hypocritically to ban so many people and users for talking about this. Yet you are making posts and steering conversation on your viewpoint.
When really there is a long long long list of people who actually matter and disagree with you.
Kevin Pan Manager AntPool
Anatoly Legkodymov CEO A-XBT
Larry Salibra Bitcoin Association Hong Kong
Leonhard Weese Bitcoin Association Hong Kong
Cory Fields Bitcoin Core Contributor
Johnson Lau Bitcoin Core Contributor
Luke Dashjr Bitcoin Core Contributor
Matt Corallo Bitcoin Core Contributor
Peter Todd Bitcoin Core Contributor
Kang Xie Bitcoin Roundtable
Phil Potter Chief Strategy Officer Bitfinex
Valery Vavilov CEO BitFury
Alex Petrov CIO BitFury
Jihan Wu Co-CEO Bitmain
Micree Zhan Co-CEO Bitmain
James Hilliard Pool/Farm Admin BitmainWarranty
Yoshi Goto CEO BitmainWarranty
Alex Shultz CEO BIT-X Exchange
Han Solo CEO Blockcloud
Adam Back President Blockstream
Bobby Lee CEO BTCC
Samson Mow COO BTCC
Robin Yao CTO BW
Obi Nwosu Managing Director Coinfloor
Mark Lamb Founder Coinfloor
Wang Chun Admin F2Pool
Marco Streng CEO Genesis Mining
Marco Krohn CFO Genesis Mining
Oleksandr Lutskevych CEO GHash.IO & CEX.IO
Wu Gang CEO HaoBTC
Leon Li CEO Huobi
Zhang Jian Vice President Huobi
Eric Larchevêque CEO Ledger
Jack Liao CEO LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange
Star Xu CEO OKCoin
Jack Liu Head of International OKCoin
Guy Corem CEO Spondoolies-Tech
Pindar Wong Sponsor
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: AnonymousRev
1: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.pw4crj5ke
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Best - Bitcoin Mining Software 2020 MINING BITCOIN TERBARU (MULTICRYPTO) How to Get Free Bitcoins Best Bitcoin Mining Software 2019 Bitcoin Edge Dev++ 2017 - YouTube Fast Bitcoin Mining

BIP91 (or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 91) is the work of software engineer James Hilliard, it addresses incompatibilities between the competing SegWit2x and BIP148 protocols. Both bring SegWit to Bitcoin, except that SegWit2x refuses communication with BIP148, which would effectively cause Bitcoin to split in two. What’s BIP91? BIP91 seeks to address this problem by enabling SegWit2x and ... Fortunately, Bitcoin mining software developer James Hilliard came to the rescue. He initiated BIP91, which attempted to conciliate the two groups and focus on the key target that they both had in common: the activation of SegWit. Basically, BIP91 was meant to activate the update, assuming enough miners ran it quickly, before the UASF date. And this is exactly what happened. As of April 2020 ... “Nutty.” No, developer James Hilliard isn’t describing his lunch. Rather, that’s his choice of description for Segwit2x, the controversial technical roadmap announced by bitcoin’s ... Bitcoin.org website. Contribute to jameshilliard/bitcoin.org development by creating an account on GitHub. View James Hilliard’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. James has 3 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover James ...

[index] [1339] [29657] [31443] [25738] [35851] [22633] [1329] [4459] [27739] [10689]

Bitcoin Mining Best - Bitcoin Mining Software 2020

Mining Bitcoin Terbaru (MULTICRYPTO) mining bitcoin terbaru (BCH. LTC DASH. kalau mau depo pakai dana bebas ya, tapi sebaiknya jangan depo, jangan dana beras... James Jani Recommended for you. 17:26. BITCOIN MINING V2 (FAST, SIMPLE, FREE) - Duration: 1:26. BIT GUIDES 20,441 views. 1:26. Building a 3.5kWh DIY Solar Generator for $650 - Start to Finish ... Justin works at one of the multi-million dollar cryptocurrency and Bitcoin mining facilities where they mine Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Ethereum, Dash, and many other popular crypto coins ... James Jani Recommended for you. 17:26. The Best ASIC Miner For Residential Mining - FutureBit Apollo Review - Duration: 18:23. VoskCoin 46,937 views. 18:23. Professor Eric Laithwaite: Magnetic ... I've been trading bitcoin for around five years now and it is a very steep learning curve, but in my videos I try to make it as simple as possible so that absolute beginners can get up and running ...

#