/btc was created to foster and support free and open Bitcoin discussion about cryptocurrency, Bitcoin news, and exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from top Bitcoin and cryptocurrency leaders. Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet. A distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever. Learn more about Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, cryptocurrency, and more.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) brings sound money to the world. Merchants and users are empowered with low fees and reliable confirmations. The future shines brightly with unrestricted growth, global adoption, permissionless innovation, and decentralized development. All Bitcoin holders as of block 478558 are now owners of Bitcoin Cash. All Bitcoiners are welcome to join the Bitcoin Cash community as we move forward in creating sound money accessible to the whole world.
BitcoinSV is Bitcoin! Nothing else even comes close.
My reasons for believing in Bitcoin (BSV): Bitcoin HAS reliable zero-confirmation transactions. (BTC doesn't). Bitcoin HAS unlimited blocks. (BTC doesn't). Bitcoin HAS OP_codes. (BTC doesn't). Bitcoin GETS RID of parasitic P2SH! (BTC doesn't). Bitcoin DIDN'T implement SegWit. (BTC did). Bitcoin ENCOURAGES SPV transactions! (BTC doesn't). Bitcoin IS Turing Complete. (BTC isn't). Bitcoin CAN facilitate on-chain Smart Contracts! (BTC can't). Bitcoin HAS protocol stability. (BTC doesn't). Bitcoin IS legally compliant. (BTC isn't, with LN). Bitcoin IS protected by nChain's Patent Fortress! (BTC isn't). Bitcoin CAN massively scale to global adoption. (BTC can't). Bitcoin CAN facilitate the Metanet. (BTC can't). Satoshi CREATED Bitcoin. (Blockstream created SewWitCore/BTC). Craig Wright IS Satoshi! (... nobody else comes close). Satoshi OWNS 1 million BTC, 1 million BCH & 1 million BSV. ***BSV is Bitcoin!*** Change my mind!
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
03-21 13:14 - '#Repost @spela.co @download.ins --- Have you ever got payed unlimited amounts of money for the KNOWLEDGE you have? Me either ❗️ Until I found Forex and Networking 💰 Best part ❓ No one can. EVER take it away fro...' (i.redd.it) by /u/spela_co12000 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 3-13min
03-13 06:34 - 'Want to EARN ONLINE while at home? / Join us today on IxiMoney. It is an effective solution for earning on viewing advertising websites! / Just spend 2-3 hours a day and you will earn up to $500. / You can earn unlimited! / The...' by /u/JJane2020 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-6min
''' Want to EARN ONLINE while at home? Join us today on IxiMoney. It is an effective solution for earning on viewing advertising websites! Just spend 2-3 hours a day and you will earn up to $500. You can earn unlimited! The more you spend time watching ADS, the more money you earn! Just Watch Paid ADS and Earn now! Just click this link and sign up for FREE! [[link]2 Hurry Up and Start Earning Today!! ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: JJane2020 1: *x**oney.xyz*10*563410419*7*/ 2: **imone***yz/1075**410*19971/]^^1 Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Andrew Stone can you please stop being such a cuck.
What is it you are trying to achieve attacking Amaury/ABC ?
Bitcoin Unlimited become de-facto BCash node? Don't think it'll happen. Salty Roger is trying to say he's staying out of it - however he is very much in it as Roger made that phone call on fork night to Amaury telling him to add the emergency checkpoint they'd just mined into BCash blockchain so they could do an emergency release all within around 10 minutes and fix the chain. You weren't called, Bitcoin Unlimited weren't invited. Anybody half technical knows if miners were using BU and BSV attacked this could of caused a chain split or at least miner losing his block rewards, and bad image for BU. They didn't care about you, Nakamoto Consensus or BU at that moment.
Bitcoin Unlimited get made defunct and outsted from "the community"? Probably likely to happen, they always use PoSM on /btc, you've stopped being unlimited and supporting the real Big Block Bitcoin. OK so you are some devs worth more than many, they outsted many passionate people calling us trolls, paid accounts and shills. We're still here attacking them with passion and will do so until they die. If it comes to it you will be labelled as disruptive devs and outsted. All the BABies will be instructed to turn on you by posts made by moderators supporting ABC.
Cause a hardfork Do it. I'm all for Bitcoin Cash Unlimited, and if you look at the Chinese side the miners there are all wanting 1 minute block times. You could kill 2 birds with one Stone, an Andrew Stone.
One last swan-song and shit throwing show before you implement real Big Bitcoin support in your node again, and dump those 2MB block liteycoiners, the fakebigblockies. Come compete with nChain, give Shadders & Connoly a run for their money - keep 'em all on their toes!
DO IT. DO ANY OF THEM. BUT JUST MAKE YOUR MOTIVES CLEAR, STOP BEING A CUCK AND GET OFF THE FKIN FENCE. WE'LL SUPPORT YOU WHATEVER YOU DO!
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
It's interesting that early Bitcoin version 0.3.0.0 is compatible with Bitcoin Cash, but not Bitcoin Core. The reason is that version 0.3.0.0 still had unlimited block size before temporary reduction to prevent spamming. It was meant to be restored, which is what Bitcoin Cash did.
"It is interesting that early Bitcoin version 0.3.0.0 is compatible with Bitcoin Cash, but not Bitcoin Core. To me, this makes Bitcoin Cash the real Bitcoin. The reason is that version 0.3.0.0 still had unlimited block size before temporary reduction to prevent spamming. It was meant to be restored, which is what Bitcoin Cash did." -Quote from Jaime Warlock's comment here.
(part in bold was omitted from the title due to space restrictions)
"Infinity" patch for Bitcoin Core v0.12.1, v0.13.2, v0.14.0 — Support SegWit *and* larger blocks
run a full node
are a user, not a miner
don't particularly care how large the blocks are
are concerned about undiscovered bugs in Bitcoin Unlimited
want to support SegWit and larger blocks
…then this patch is for you. This patch contains the minimal changes necessary to make Bitcoin Core accept blocks of any size (up to the overall message size limit of 32 MiB). It does this without removing or neutering the protections against blocks with excessive numbers of signature operations ("sigops"). The maximum number of sigops allowed scales linearly with the size (weight) of the block. Blocks at or smaller than Core's current limit are treated exactly the same as by unpatched Bitcoin Core, meaning this patch will have no effect until and unless a hard fork to larger blocks occurs. If a hard fork does occur, nodes running this patch will follow whichever chain demonstrates the most work, regardless of the sizes of the blocks in that chain. This means that nodes running this patch may diverge from nodes running unpatched Bitcoin Core. Apply this patch only if you understand and agree to bear the risks involved. Why might you want to use this patch? Core users: If there's a hard fork, you're going to want a way to control your BTU balance. Your Core wallet won't see BTU-only outputs. You could run an instance of Bitcoin Unlimited alongside your Bitcoin Core node to access these BTU-only outputs, but you might be concerned about bugs in Bitcoin Unlimited, and you might not want to actively participate in this whole "emergent consensus" thing. By running a second Bitcoin Core instance with this "Infinity" patch, you will be able to access your BTU balances without needing to run Bitcoin Unlimited. Unlimited users: If you want to increase on-chain capacity, then you might want to support both SegWit and larger base blocks. Maybe you don't really know what to set "EB" and "AD" to; maybe you'd rather not have to care. If you simply want to follow whichever chain has the most work, then you don't need the complexity (and risks) of Bitcoin Unlimited. By running your node with this "Infinity" patch, you will have the best of both worlds. Where is the patch? You can get the patch for your preferred version of Bitcoin Core here (see the links at the bottom).
Are Bitcoin ABC, Unlimited, Classic & XT working together to introduce new features to Bitcoin Cash?
Does anybody know if Bitcoin ABC, Unlimited, Classic & XT are working together to introduce new features to Bitcoin Cash? I think this is the best time to prove 4 dev teams are better than 1, Flexible Transactions are better that SegWit, a FlexCap is better than a fix limit. If you guys can pull this off, and prove the community that you can deliver, I think a big crunch of the SegWit2x hash power will go your way when Core refuses to implement the "x2" part. What do you guys said? What is the most important feature you like to see implemented on the Big Blocker's chain?
Bitcoin Unlimited Concerns . Die Sorge um das Gabeln ist einer der Gründe, warum Bitcoin Unlimited nicht der neue Standard ist. Ein weiteres Anliegen von Bitcoin Unlimited ist, dass das Zulassen größerer Blöcke dazu führen könnte, dass nur Bergleute mit hoher Rechenleistung rentabel sind, während kleinere Bergleute mit begrenzteren Ressourcen ausgeschlossen werden. Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) is a full node software client for the bitcoin network.Compared to the Bitcoin Core client hard-coding the block size limit to 1 megabyte, from which it is forked, Bitcoin Unlimited does not hard-code the limit, allowing the users to signal which block size limit they prefer, find the limit having a majority consensus and set their block size limit to that value. There are 3 Unlimited Crypto Exchanges of Changenow that are very important in the crypto currency exchanges and the crypto industry. Changenow is absolutely the fastest access to buy, sell and exchange bitcoin and crypto currencies limitlessly. Changenow is popular instant crypto asset exchange with 100+ coins and tokens listed. Bitcoin Unlimited is an implementation of the Bitcoin client software that is based on Bitcoin Core. Every node operator or miner can currently choose their own blocksize limit by modifying their client. Bitcoin Unlimited makes the process easier by providing a configurable option for the accepted and generated blocksize via a GUI menu. Bitcoin is one of the most popular cryptocurrencies. Maybe even the most because it has started the huge crypto - boom. There are some ways to get this currency - you may become a miner, of course but it's connected with huge investment. Here we give you the option for getting free BTC. With us and the best Bitcoin Faucet you can generate BTC and then enjoy them. The system is simple, don't ...
How to get UNLIMITED Bitcoin for FREE in 2020! - YouTube
Earn unlimited bitcoin without investment 25BTC Every 3 minutes Free Bitcoin instant withdraw Subscribe- https://bit.ly/33mw8ED Website- How to create ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. #FREEBITCOIN#ONLINEINCOME#HOMEBASEJOB #FREDERICKVLOGS USEFUL LINKS:. https://freebitco.in/?r=39103643 Jan Heran Kalo Gada Intro, Gak sempet Bikin Asw,, Kalo mau, bikinin lah :v Script sederhana Asal Bekerja, haha Site Cloud Mining: https://bit.ly/33ttJJu http... With Bitcoin Unlimited currently holding 10% of the global hash rate and dominating the Bitcoin news cycle for their controversial stances on scaling, join us for an evening of presentations by ...