Coinbase and Reddit CEOs Discuss Removal of Theymos as ...
Coinbase and Reddit CEOs Discuss Removal of Theymos as ...
theymos comments on Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong: BIP 101 ...
Theymos Threatens to Ban Coinbase From Reddit, BitcoinTalk ...
Theymos: "Bitcoins Belonging To Satoshi Should Be Destroyed"
A (Brief and Incomplete) History of Censorship in /r/Bitcoin
/u/theymos: -249 points from last 1000 comments. Worst Comment (-752 points): "Right. If Coinbase promotes XT to customers on coinbase.com and/or switches all of its full nodes to BIP 101 software, then Coinbase is no longer using the Bitcoin currency, and it doesn't belong on /r/Bitcoin."
Back in 2015 theymos threatened to ban coinbase from r/bitcoin and push all mentions into the altcoin section of bitcointalk for promoting BIP101 and Bitcoin XT. Pretty crazy, I had never read about this
/u/theymos: -249 points from last 1000 comments. Worst Comment (-752 points): "Right. If Coinbase promotes XT to customers on coinbase.com and/or switches all of its full nodes to BIP 101 software, then Coinbase is no longer using the Bitcoin currency, and it doesn't belong on /r/Bitcoin."
I have enjoyed watching Cobra slowly change his public position on several things. It's never too late to make up for ones mistakes in my eyes! Still, maybe this is a fun opportunity to revisit some of the highlights of Cobra's tenure over Bitcoin.org. 15 June 2015: Bitcoin.org introduces an official ‘position on hard-forks,’ which meant it would not promote XT. Bitcoin.org will not promote software or services that will leave the previous consensus because of a contentious hard fork attempt. 26 December 2015: Cobra makes a Github issue to remove Coinbase from the “choose your wallet” page on Bitcoin.org to punish them for running a Bitcoin XT node in addition to their Bitcoin Core node. 01 July 2016: Cobra posts on Github that he wants to update the Bitcoin whitepaper because it confuses people. 03 July 2017: An issue is open on the Bitcoin.org Github account titled Removal of BTC.com wallet? Cobra replies that he doesn’t mind if they are removed from the website as punishment because of their association with Jihan Wu and therefore, big block efforts. They’re associated with that monster Jihan Wu, so I don’t mind if they get removed because of this, they’re terrible people. I definitely feel like a line has been crossed here. 28 September 2017: Cobra opens a Github issue for Bitcoin.org labeled Add Segwit2x Safety Alert. The alert ostensibly warns users of hostile companies, but the list includes most of the oldest, most successful Bitcoin companies, and the real goal seems to be to scare or punish these companies for their stance on Segwit 2x. 08 November 2017: Theymos creates a Github issue titled Policy to fight against “miners control Bitcoin” narrative. Hilariously, Cobra replies in agreement and blames this misconception on the white paper itself. 11 August 2018: Cobra creates a Github issue to discuss relisting companies that were removed from Bitcoin.org for supporting the 2mb hard fork block size increase. His reasoning is that the delisting worked to stop the increase and that these companies are unlikely to try it again. You will be missed Cobra! If you are interested in appointing a member of Bitcoin.org who will be more open to competing ideas, I invite you to DM me. I am very familiar with the Jekyll static site generator you're currently using.
Two years in, the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin Cash
Two years ago today, after years of Bitcoin failing to raise an artificial limit on capacity, a small group of Bitcoiners decided to move forward with a proposed protocol upgrade with or without community consensus, forking Bitcoin and creating Bitcoin Cash. Today I predict that the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin Cash two years later is not a technical one. Rather, it is a matter of whether this community can make the transition from defining itself in relation to what it’s not (BTC, Core, Blockstream, the Lightning Network) to defining itself on the basis of what it is and aspires to be. Not only is this the biggest challenge that Bitcoin Cash faces, I think it is one of existential significance for the entire project. Nearly every day for the past two years, I've checked in on this subreddit, read your contributions, up- and down-voted, commented and sometimes even posted. One thing that has stood out more clearly as time has moved on, and which has increasingly become a cause of distress in recent months is our continued unhealthy obsession with BTC. I am not the only person that has noticed this. Earlier this month, one of our most prolific contributors u/Kain-niak said: "Hey can we all get over our victim complex and move towards the future. BCH is working great and has been for almost 2 years now, ZERO interruptions. 99,99% of every tx made was in the next or second block. We are not victims, we are leaders." Something else that comes to mind is u/Jonald_fyookball's recent suggestion that, whilst true, insisting that Bitcoin Cash represents "Bitcoin: a peer to peer electronic cash system" and BTC doesn't, may not be our most effective marketing strategy. Let is suffice to say that these comments from well-respected contributors were received as rather controversial. And yet, this is our subreddit. Here are just some of the notable and popular posts from the last week:
I know that some of you will say that we need to speak the truth and inform people about what happened to Bitcoin, and I agree. But there are several of problems with this response. First of all, it seems obvious to me that these daily posts aren’t for newcomers, they’re for us. Even though Bitcoin Cash is going strongly and there’s exciting news almost every day, somehow we still feel the need to constantly post all of this negative content. Why do we need to construct this ever larger and more malicious picture of Core and Blockstream to feel good about Bitcoin Cash? This suggests to me that something's not quite right about our community spirit. Second, it just has really terrible optics; especially if we're hoping to draw new people into Bitcoin Cash. Posting day after day about everything that’s wrong with BTC doesn’t help us attract new users to crypto or to Bitcoin Cash. For one, normies don't care about this (ancient) history. They just want a cool cryptocurrency that is easy to use and which works (that's BCH!!!). Moreover, to outsiders this kind of meme war against BTC appears obsessive, deranged and resentful, playing right into the maximalist propaganda that's been spread about Bitcoin Cash. In short, people coming here for the first time and reading this material don’t think: “Oh, I wasn’t aware of all of these great criticisms of BTC. I guess Bitcoin Cash is awesome.” No, they think: “Why are those Bitcoin Cash guys so angry and obsessed? That’s not healthy!!” And the truth is, it's not healthy. I worry that, given the choice, some of us here in btc would rather that BTC be wrong than for BCH succeed. I worry that the Bitcoin Cash community would rather virtue signal about upholding “freedom of speech”, all the while battling the trolls to the death, than elect to congregate in a forum where we can actually have a decent discussion about the things we care about. And I worry that we'd rather re-live the same pointless debates eternally—whether the trolls go by the name of Hernzz or Charlie Lee or Samson Mow or someone else—than to actually do productive work improving and spreading adoption of Bitcoin Cash. And finally, it seems that if anyone raises these issues, then their commitment to Bitcoin Cash is immediately called into question. Having seen other users figuratively smear their faecal matter over the walls and windows and having suggested politely that they might want to reconsider their actions—that such behaviour is perhaps unhygienic and might make us all look like derelicts to passers by—I've been accused of being a "core psyop". "Stahp repressing me!" is the line. Today is the anniversary of our independence day. The Bitcoin Cash fork was 2 years ago. The Theymos ban hammer was almost 4 years ago. But somehow we're still stuck in this narcissistic time-loop where we'd apparently prefer to dwell on the injustice of these events than get on with building the bitcoin that we supposedly care so much about. Blockstream no longer stands in our way. So what's the hold up? I'm under no illusions that this post will be popular, but I'm convinced that things must change if this situation is to improve. I hope that enough of you give some of this a few minute's thought. Our current approach has not worked; it's time to try something different. In summary, I propose that:
We make a conscious effort not to dwell on negatives about Bitcoin, Core, Blockstream or LN anymore than is absolutely necessary to maintain and defend our integrity. Let looking away be our only negation.
We focus on talking about promising BCH news, discuss ideas about spreading adoption, and new use-cases etc.
We make a conscious effort not to engage with trolls. They sap precious energy that is already in scarce supply.
If trolls make involved, focused discussion impossible, then the community should consider migrating such discussion to a more suitable forum, such as bitcoincash. Intellectual hygiene is precious and we cannot allow our intelligence to be degraded by trolls.
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Take care, all.
I haven't seen this posted in a while. If you've never read this post, you really should. Edit: Screwed up the formatting. See other comments. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Dear Reddit Admins: We need to talk about /r/Bitcoin
We know you are well aware of the censorship problem on /Bitcoin, because it's been brought to your attention many times. I've messaged the admins several times over the past year and a half. I even replied to a standing offer by Reddit adminsAchievementUnlockd and Chtorr offering to discuss the issues facing various communities on Reddit. Although I'm not a mod, I did make the offer to put them in touch with the moderator team of /btc. My messages have always been ignored. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has even confronted Reddit CEO Steve Huffman about the issue directly, in a July 2016 conversation (video).
Steve Huffman: "Our feeling is, we want people to be able to express themselves. [...] Where we can confidently draw the line is, are you affecting other people in a negative way? First starting on Reddit, and then the world in general."
Brian Armstrong: "Have you ever thought about doing things like elections for moderators?" Huffman: "There are a lot of product decisions that we've made over the years, that we didn't consider at the time the long-term ramifications of them. The moderator hierarchy situation is one of them. We're often in these situations where we see these communities, we see moderators behaving in a way that we wouldn't behave if we were running it, and that kind of go against our inclination to let things play out and generally be open. And we've seen that on the /bitcoin community, I don't disagree with you at all. But we also try to put ourselves in a position right now, our opinion is we generally try to stay hands off unless they are breaking other site-wide rules."
spez: The silence from the Reddit admins on this major issue plaguing the Bitcoin community has been deafening. You say you want people to be able to express themselves, yet you tolerate an insane amount of censorship and discussion manipulation on a very large subreddit dedicated to a topic that is very much part of the public zeitgeist right now. The censorship goes far beyond simple curation and deep into straight-up "thoughtcrime" territory. By now, at LEAST thousands of users have been banned from the subreddit for the sole offense of questioning the moderators decisions or having a difference of opinion with them. Bannable offenses include asking why the fees on the Bitcoin network are so high right now, or stating the obvious that high fees are undesirable. You can't even type the word "censorship" in their subreddit, because that word is one of many on their "forbidden words" list (you can't make this shit up). You say you want to stay hands-off unless site-wide rules are being broken, or if the subreddit is being used to harm people. Yet you tolerate the /bitcoin moderators' blatant CSS manipulation [image], circulation of "enemies" lists (https://archive.is/er916) featuring prominent Bitcoin figures they don't like, frequent character assassination campaigns against people or companies they don't like, and actively organizing vote brigades to do things like flood the app of a company they don't like with 1-star reviews calling it a scam (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It's pretty clear that the /Bitcoin subreddit is in violation of multiple of your stated principles, yet you continually ignore it. Does this look like a healthy community to you? How about this? When /Bitcoin right-hand censor BashCo made his hysterical (and we now know falsified) post about the attack perpetrated by /Bitcoin mods and certain members of Bitcoin Core, Reddit admin sodypop showed up in no time to apologize and communicate with the community. Have the Reddit admins ever addressed the /btc community, which has a lot of legitimate grievances about the censorship on /bitcoin? /Bitcoin head moderator theymosonce wrote:
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
Theymos has previously stolen millions of dollars of donated funds and funneled them to his buddies, never delivering on the software he was supposedly paying for to be developed. We also know that at least one /Bitcoin moderator, BashCo, is involved in coordinated trolling attacks and character assassinations through his involvement in Bitcoin Core's "Dragon's Den" propaganda group. I can't imagine you haven't seen these articles by now, but the history of the censorship on /bitcoin has been well documented:
Are these the kinds of people you want representing such a large and prominent subreddit on your site? The question I'd like to ask the Reddit admins: Do you define a community by its moderators, or by its members? For all the talking about "community" you guys do, you certainly don't seem to have a problem with the massive disruption of the huge open source Bitcoin community that has been largely driven by moderation policies of /Bitcoin. While I respect Reddit’s stated position to allow communities to manage themselves as they see fit, the Bitcoin community is much larger than theymos. His actions, including blacklisting entire companies and deleting posts that speak favorably of certain software proposals, have been the leading factor in driving a wedge through the $136 billion dollar open-source digital currency project that is Bitcoin. For years /Bitcoin was the central hub of discussion for the Bitcoin community, but today this divide has created an air of toxicity and all out civil war within our industry. I understand that Reddit chooses to defend free speech, but allowing theymos and his team to remain moderators of the 430,000 member strong community /Bitcoin has the opposite effect and contributes to the stifling of free and open discussion. I propose implementing open moderation logs and replacing the /Bitcoin moderation team with a team of neutral third-party moderators who can be counted on to uphold the responsibilities of moderating such a large and important community. I'm probably talking to a brick wall here, as continuing to ignore this elephant in the room would be perfectly in line with all of your past behavior. I hope you prove me wrong, admins.
Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin. Clearing up the FUD. (crosspost /r/cryptocurrency)
Definition of a scam : a dishonest scheme; a fraud. First of all, let me start with off with this. No one wanted Bitcoin Cash to exist, no one wanted another Bitcoin subreddit to exist (/BTC). This is how Bitcoin Cash was forked off & the reasons. In 2015, the plan was made by the Bitcoin Core developers and the community supported it. This plan was to increase the blocksize. He said in 2015, 2MB now, 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years then re-assess. The plan was very simple. Increase the blocksize, lower fees for everyone, more transactions possible. But this changed in 2015. The Moderators of /Bitcoin, particularly theymos who not only controls /Bitcoin but also Bitcoin.org and BitcoinTalk.org, decided to censor pro-bigblocks supporters (which was technically everyone because no one knew of any other solution that would work right now). The effects were there. Bitcoin users left in 2017 as the fees rose too high, while the others remained hoping that a solution would be found or they shifted to BCH or other coins. This led to BTC losing their market cap percentage and led to other altcoins to rise. Core developers have said that Segwit and Lightning is going to solve the problem. Lightning was said in 2015 December to be released in 2016 1, 2. Segwit is not a long term solution and will weaken Bitcoin's security. It allows more transactions but it is irreversible. You can't go back to non-Segwit after using SegWit. Lightning is very centralized and complicated. It requires you to be online 24/7, have your private keys connected to the Internet and requires you to first do an on-chain transaction to open a channel. To even get the community to believe that lightning and segwit is a solution, they had to censor the main channels (/Bitcoin, Bitcoin.org and BitcoinTalk.org) OpenBazaar dev explains why they aren't adding Lightning Bitcoin Cash is not BCash, B Cash, Bcash, Bitchcash, Bitcash, BTrash. It is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). This and this is Bcash, this is BTrash BCH is not controlled by the 'Chinese' or 'Jihan'. A substantial amount of mining is done outside of China. The same can go for BTC, where BTC has got about 70% of their mining done in China. BCH was not forked off by Roger Ver or Jihan Wu, they are only promoters, investors and people that create products for Bitcoin Cash. BCH was forked off by a group of miners including Amaury Sechet. BCH is entitled to using the name bitcoin because it has the genesis block in it and because it is loyal to the original Satoshi whitepaper where bitcoin was first mentioned/coined. BCH can definitely scale on-chain at least for sometime. Right now at 24 TPS. It can scale with bigger blocks. Centralization will not occur. Satoshi already mentioned that big servers with hashpower would be the ones mining while users will remain users. SPV is a solution for users, while miners will run a full node (copy of the blockchain and hashpower), while business, hobbyists, researchers and others can choose to run SPV or relay nodes (nodes that have the copy of the blockchain but do not have hashpower at all) Roger Ver raging publicly or being a felony isn't an argument to say that BCH is controlled by him. If you don't like BCH, it does not make it a scam. Just don't use it. If you find Roger Ver or Calvin Ayre a controversial figure, that also does not make BCH a scam. If you find Coinbase expressing their support towards BCH, that does not make it a scam. If you know that there's a better coin in your opinion, that does not make it a scam. Some resources/links : https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/31vi0t/theymos_friends_as_mods_here https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/41102k/if_theymos_truly_cares_about_bitcoins_success_he https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l36ck/guess_this_will_be_censored_but_theymos_opens_up https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h5f90/these_mods_need_to_be_changed_upvote_if_you_agree/ The story of /Bitcoin, /BTC, Bitcoin & Bitcoin Cash A collection of evidence Why some people call Bitcoin Cash Bcash Lukejr mentioning slavery is moral TL:DR : Bitcoin Cash is not a scam because no one is being robbed. It was forked off because Bitcoin's development was hijacked by Bitcoin Core. Fees were getting high and solutions that aren't out yet were being proposed, while a solution that's ready isn't proposed. If you don't like it, simply choose not to use it. edit : edited a paragraph to clarify it more in depth.
<theymos> The risk was that /r/Bitcoin users (and others) would consider XT to be equal to Bitcoin and not really care if Coinbase, etc. supported it. <theymos> Also, considering XT to be an altcoin was really the only consistent policy. <Aquentin> are you seriously that naive <Aquentin> to think your censoring is somewhat good... Theymos made good on his earlier threats to remove Coinbase from bitcoin.org, along with any other company that dared to voice an opinion in favor of bigger blocks (as seen in this Github commit). Coinbase and Reddit CEOs Discuss Removal of Theymos as Moderator of Bitcoin Subreddit. July 29, 2016 By Kyle Torpey. The controversy surrounding the level of moderation in the /r/Bitcoin subreddit has been a huge topic of conversation in the Bitcoin community ever since the release of Bitcoin XT, which is software — originally maintained by former Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn — intended to ... Die dritte involvierte Person ist theymos. Am 17. Oktober gab es einen Handels-IRC -Kanal #bitcoin-otc. Am 28. Oktober war die erste Short-Trade-Transaktion für 100 Münzen (vom Benutzer Nanotube zur Benutzer kiba). Die Transaktionsdatenbank war der Handelskanal #bitcoin-otc. Am 6. November betrug die Kapitalisierung von Bitcoin 1 Million US-Dollar. Der Wechselkurs an der MtGox-Börse hat $ 0 ... Theymos, the owner of the BitcoinTalk forums and manager of /r/Bitcoin, posted an interesting comment on the situation. “This issue has been discussed for several years,” he said.
12th-18th May 2019 ENERGY UPDATE (Week 20): CHECKS & BALANCES
Salt Lake City, UT- Welcome to the 1 Bitcoin Show! Paypal is the news of the day, but is it the biggest BTC news of the year? Some more examples of gold bein... 12th-18th May 2019 ENERGY UPDATE (Week 20): CHECKS & BALANCES by/with jona bryndis, www.transcodes.com Keywords Week 20: GETTING OURSELVES OUT OF THE WAY HAR... Learn how to buy with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency through Coinbase. In this example, I will be purchasing an IPTV service called Yeah! IPTV with Bitcoin... - Early supporters of Bitcoin, including Roger Ver, Coinbase, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, etc., are scammers Pretty soon, you have to take a step back and look at whether every single person ... Investing in Bitcoin doesn't have to be complicated. Watch this video and sign up for a wallet with Coinbase today and start making money!!! https://www.coin...