Bitcoin, Blockchain, Crypto Resource List Beyond Money
Bitcoin, Blockchain, Crypto Resource List Beyond Money
Op-Ed Why I Applaud Mike Hearn For Turning on Bitcoin ...
Mike Hearn on PKI and Bitcoin Payment Protocol : Bitcoin
Bitcoin Turns 10: Inside the Journey of Radical Idea to ...
Mike Hearn Bitcoin 2017 CryptoCoins Info Club
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
TL;DR: The market will inevitably prefer:
non-fiat-funded dev teams (and mining operations);
non-centrally planned, non-hard-coded blocksize - which the users and miners can adjust over time, based on evolving economic and technological conditions.
This means that the market of Bitcoin users and miners will reject Core/Blockstream's SegWit (with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics) - and the market will prefer Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based (user-configurable) blocksize based on a much simpler & safer hard fork - allowing essentially "unlimited" growth in Bitcoin adoption and price. Details Seriously folks, think about it: How many successful broad-based socio-economic disruptive technologies allow their "community debate" about the high-level system specification to be centrally controlled and censored by a bunch of low-level (C++) implementation providers (and a bunch of central bankers funding them with fiat)? The Bitcoin community never really asked for SegWit-as-a-soft-fork. It's being forced on us. SegWit has been the horrendous misbegotten result of years of trolling from three stubborn out-of-touch devs who happened to get millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers: u/nullc and u/adam3us and the odd u/luke-jr who they carefully keep at arm's length - and a tiny army of lesser trolls, trotting out the same-old tired totally debunked, massively downvoted arguments - all supported by central banker trolls who provided $76 million in fiat to fund this misguided mess. Many people in the Bitcoin community have never really participated in or even seen a serious, open, and honest debate about SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited - because there are basically only two kinds of people in the Bitcoin community now:
people who have been brainwashed by the propaganda on the anti-cypherpunk & pro-corporate subreddit r\bitcoin and/or corrupted by fiat from central bankers (and so most of these less-informed people support SegWit)
people who have been ostracized and banned by the anti-cypherpunk & pro-corporate subreddit r\bitcoin - so they moved elsewhere, to btc or Twitter or Medium or wherever (and most of these more-informed people support Bitcoin Unlimited)
Bitcoin development used to be dominated by forward-thinking, community-responsive, devs supporting simple and safe on-chain scaling like Satoshi Nakamoto (whose quotes are banned on r\bitcoin), Gavin Andresen (ceaselessly hounded and attacked by an army of trolls) and Mike Hearn (whose greatest invention may have been the forgotten Lighthouse project - which could have given us bitcoin-funded ie non-fiat-funded development). Now Bitcoin development is dominated by Debbie Downers and Dead Enders like u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr who have never really believed that Bitcoin can scale on-chain and succeed the way that Satoshi said it could. They've been doing everything they can to destroy Satoshi's successful experiment - refusing to remove Bitcoin's temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge for purely political and not technical reasons, and now trying to force everyone to adopt SegWit - the final, fatal kludge. If it wasn't for the massive censoring on r\bitcoin, then a tsunami of true cypherpunk freedom and real community consensus would wash that cesspool clean, and the fiat-funded voices of u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr (and the tiny minority of their vocal but misguided supporters) would sink the the bottom of every thread, a forgotten footnote of history with their shitty soft kludgy centrally-planned anyone-can-spend 1.7MB 1-to-4-discount SegWit soft-fork poison pill. If Bitcoin gets upgraded the way Satoshi said it would (via flag days and/or hard forks - also known as a simple protocol upgrade or a full node referendum), then the community would reject Core/Blockstream's shitty centralized SegWit spaghetti-code soft fork, and Core/Blockstream would be forgotten - and their investors would be furious. The Bitcoin community isn't stupid. Economically intelligent Bitcoin users and miners will not vote against our own economic interests. We will not "upgrade" to dangerous, messy, dead-end technology (SegWit) which needlessly overcomplicates our codebase and needlessly suppresses Bitcoin's userbase and price - when we can just as easily updrade to something clean and simple and growth-oriented like Bitcoin Unlimited, which keeps our codebase clean and simple and safe, while providing an open-ended, market-based, long-term solution for blocksize, supporting long-term (essentially "unlimited") growth in Bitcoin's userbase and price. Everyone (ie, everyone who gets their information on uncensored forums like btc and who isn't getting millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers) knows by now that:
SegWit would radically and recklessly restructure Bitcoin's highly successful security data structures - making all transactions "anyone-can-spend" to any clients with are not "upgraded" to SegWit
It is an outrage and an insult for Core/Blockstream's development team and their squad of cheerleaders on r\bitcoin to call SegWit "safe" and "soft" when it's actually messy, dangerous and overcomplicated - plus it's a dead-end because it will continue to artifically suppress Bitcoin's adoption and price.
It is the very softness (ie: kludginess) of SegWit which would make future upgrades to Bitcoin so much more difficult and complicated (aka "technical debt"). Worst of all: SegWit would introduce a radical, unknown, untested exotic new threat vector: a totally new type of "51% attack" where old coins would now also be at risk (due to SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" semantics - which would be totally unnecessary to use if SegWit had been done as a clean and safe hard fork, instead of a messy and dangerous soft fork). The stubbornness (and recklessness) of insisting on doing SegWit as this kind of dangerous and messy soft fork is 100% because Blockstream is afraid to do a clean and safe "hard" fork - because a hard fork lets Bitcoin users and miners actually have an explicit "vote" - or a "full node referendum" - and Core/Blockstream knows that the result would most likely be that Bitcoin users and miners would "dump" Core/Blockstream's shitty code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its dangerous anyone-can-spend soft-fork hack. So Core/Blockstream are trying to force more dangerous, less useful code on the network, using the toxic tools of fiat and censorship, purely for their own selfish "political" and "economic" reasons. Core/Blockstream has millions of dollars in fiat now so they don't care if they continue to suppress the Bitcoin price like they have since they came on the scene in late 2014.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/ Also see a similar graph in u/Peter__R's recent article on Medium - where the graph clearly shows the same Bitcoin price suppression - ie price uncoupling from adoption and dipping below the previous tightly correlated trend - starting right at that fateful moment when Blockstream came on the scene and told Bitcoiners that we can't have nice things anymore like on-chain scaling and increasing adoption and price: late 2014. So, Core/Blockstream offers inferior, centrally planned, dangerous messy code - and they are responsible for not only splitting the community but also even arguably suppressing Bitcoin adoption and price - and now they're such bold arrogant fuckheads that they want to make their hegemony permanent by monopolizing Bitcoin governance forever in the future by sneaking in their shittier and shittier code starting with the Trojan Horse of SegWit-as-a-soft-fork with its centrally-planned hard-coded parameters and radical dangerous new anti-security model making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" - recklessly and needlessly exposing Bitcoin to exotic, unknown attack vectors which have never existed before in its 8 years of safe and successful growth. Core/Blockstream don't give a fuck if they hurt us Bitcoin users and miners in the process - because they don't care about you - they only care about themselves - and the central bankers who are paying them. Bitcoin Unlimited isn't influenced by censorship or fiat.
Bitcoin Unlimited comes from the community - it's supported by users and miners - and independent, non-fiat-funded devs.
Bitcoin Unlimited proposes using Nakamoto Consensus to provide a one-time, long-term solution for evolving blocksizes - now, and years into the future.
Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) makes two parameters - Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD) - explicitly and formally and "internally (online)" configurable and "signal-able" by miners and users.
In fact, these two parameters already have been implicitly and formally and "externally (off-line)" configurable for nearly a decade now - thus formalizing and internalizing (and moving on-line) several long-standing, successful, informal, external (offline) practices.
So, Bitcoin Unlimited provides an unlimited future path to maximum potential growth in Bitcoin adoption and Bitcoin throughput and Bitcoin price - with a single one-time upgrade posing minimal technological disruption and minimal game-theory risk.
Yes BU does involve some new game theory, which should be and in fact has been analyzed and tested in-depth to see if it would work - and there is a growing "community consensus" - among forward-thinking economically-incentivized users and miners and devs - that BU does indeed "do the right thing".
The bottom line is:
Bitcoin Unlimited's Excessive Block (EB) / Acceptance Depth (AD) approach is the product of open, decentralized, non-fiat-funded debate. Yes BU might have "imperfections" including bugs - just like Bitcoin itself did in the beginning. And you can also be sure - due to BU's open, decentralized, community-based, non-fiat-funded process, we will all work together, driven by our economic incentives, to make sure that any imperfections or "bugs" are immediately fixed, and to make sure that BU is a technological and economic success.
Core/Blockstream's SegWit-as-a-soft-fork,with its centrally-planned 1.7MB maybe-someday blocksize, and its centrally-planned 1-to-4-ratio accounting-trick making some transactions cheaper than others is messy code, that doesn't provide market-based scaling, that arbitrary hard-codes crazy values like 1.7MB and 1-to-4 discounts that some dev pulled out of their ass, and also leads to dreaded "vendor dev team lock-in" giving Core/Blockstream permanent "job security" - due to the "worse is better" principle where bad devs give themselves more and more job security by continuing to make their shitty code base shittier and shittier.
SegWit is doomed to be second-rate compared to BU - in terms of technology as well as economics.
Bitcoin Unlimited's simple and safe long-term market-based scaling keeps our code cleaner and more flexible, and ultimately will make us all much richer and make Bitcoin easier and safer to use and upgrade, when compared to SegWit's centrally planned 1.7MB blocks and dangerous soft-fork spaghetti code.
Evaluating our "upgrade options" in those (technological and economic and "governance") terms is the right way to evaluate these things - indeed it is the only way to evaluate these things - and everybody (except a bunch of unpopular out-of-touch devs and shills sucking the dicks of central bankers) knows that SegWit's messy technology, economic and scaling dead-end, and centralized governance is totally inferior to Bitcoin Unlimited, on all three counts. Everyone knows that:
With SegWit, the community would continue to suffer - immediately launching into yet-another never-ending toxic divisive blocksize debate to remove SegWit's yet-another centrally planned artificially low 1.7MB blocksize kludge WTF?!?
With SegWit, Bitcoin volume would continue to be centrally controlled, so Bitcoin's price would continue to be centrally suppressed - with Core/Blockstream continuing to centrally control and "kludge up" Bitcoin's codebase, adding more and more of their non-modular, messy continually shittier and shittier soft forks.
With Bitcoin Unlimited, the community continues to be in control - of our code, our governance, and our blocksize - not a tiny handful of fiat-funded devs and miners like Core/Blockstream and BitFury and a tiny minority of their outspoken supporters (who are well-known on this forum - just look at the bottom of every thread, where they are massively downvoted - but never censored! - after spouting their tired, tedious, repeatedly debunked astroturf arguments). The next time those people try to attack the idea of market-based blocksize, we know how to make their heads explode, just by asking them: If the users the miners shouldn't decide the blocksize - then who the fuck should?? And if that kind of conversation were to continue, it might go like: Who should decide the blocksize - you or me? _"Small-blockers" Blocksize central planners are satisfied with a centrally planned one-time hard-coded bump to 1.7MB blocks via a dangerous messy convoluted "soft" fork called SegWit which actually centralizes and suppresses Bitcoin by pricing most people off of the blockchain. Fine, that's your opinion and you're free to say it and we're free to downvote it and to reject your poorly written code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its anyone-can-spend hack. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Bitcoin users and miners want to be free - and we want our code to be simple and safe. We support market-based blocksize so our code and our markets can be free of some ridiculous arbitrary centrally planned hard-coded 1MB 1.7MB blocksize - and we want our code to be fred of messy, dangerous hacks and kludges lke SegWit. Instead, we support decentralized governance and market-based, non-centrally-planned, open-ended Bitcoin debate and open-ended Bitcoin economic and social growth and adoption. The Bitcoin community can and should and therefore eventually (inevitably) will adapt the software solution which explicitly supports users and miners deciding the blocksize in a clean, safe, future-proof "hard" fork called Bitcoin Unlimited. In the end, the market will choose the approach (SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited) which provides the most economic incentives, using the simplest and safest technology. Economic incentives, based on using the simplest and safest technology, are what drives Bitcoin and makes it succeed.
Blockstream/Core and BitFury can "afford" to ignore the will of the Bitcoin community, and can "afford" to ignore their own economic incentives - because they have millions of dollars in fiat, and they communicate on censored forums. They're fiat-funded, centralized, censored, and fragile. They're fine with making their codebase even more centralized and fragile - by adopting SegWit.
The rest of the Bitcoin community communicates on non-censored forums, and we want to maximize the value of our investments in Bitcoin. We're community-oriented and our code supports market-based blocksize using simple and safe and flexible and upgradeable code - so we're adopting Bitcoin Unlimited.
You are free to choose between these two options - based on your own economic incentives, and based on your understanding of the best technology roadmap: How rich are you gonna get with SegWit, now and in the long term?
SegWit is dangerous and messy, fiat-funded, censorship-supported centrally-planned soft-fork spaghetti code - creating zombie nodes and requiring millions of lines of risky code changes in all wallets, exchanges and business software - and in the end only offering an arbitrary pathetic 1.7MB blocksize - and recklessly making all transactions anyone-can-spend - while increasing "dev team lock-in" and continuing to centrally suppress Bitcoin's adoption and price. ... versus:
How rich are you gonna get with Bitcoin Unlimited, now and in the long term?
Bitcoin Unlimited is clean & safe community-supported non-fiat-funded, non-censorship-based code, providing a long-term scaling and governance solution offering market-based blocksize, where users and miners will continue to determine the size of blocks (as they actually quite successfully and profitably have for the past 8 years), based on our understanding of current financial and technological conditions, while continuing to support unlimited growth in Bitcoin's adoption and price (as we've also seen for the past 8 years).
The market of Bitcoin users and miners (ie, you) can and should (and therefore will) decide!
a system completely controlled by just a handful of people. Worse still, the network is on the brink of technical collapse.
This is patently untrue as power dynamics within bitcoin are a complex interwoven level of game theory shared by miners, nodes, developers, merchants and payment processors, and users. Even if one were to make the false assumption that Miners control all the power, the reality is mining pools are either made up of thousands of individual miners who can and do redirect their hashing power or private pools with companies controlled by multiple investors and owners.
Worse still, the network is on the brink of technical collapse.
If and when a fee event happens, bitcoin will be just fine. Wallets already can adjust for fees and tx fee pressures will be kept reasonable because they still need to compete with free off the chain solutions. Whether the Block size is raised to 2, 4, or 8 MB it will also be fine(in the short term) as long as corresponding sigop protections are included. The blocksize debate more has to do with bikeshedding and setting a long term direction for bitcoin than preventing a short term technical collapse.
Couldn’t move your existing money
Bitcoin functions as a payment rails system just fine, just ask Coinbase and bitpay.
Had wildly unpredictable fees that were high and rising fast
False, I normal pay 3-5 pennies , and tx instantly get to their destination and confirm between 5 min to 1 hour like normal. CC txs take weeks to months to confirm.
Allowed buyers to take back payments they’d made after walking out of shops, by simply pressing a button (if >you aren’t aware of this “feature” that’s because Bitcoin was only just changed to allow it)
RBF is opt in , and therefore payment processors won't accept this if they do 0 conf tx approvals.
Is suffering large backlogs and flaky payments The block chain is full.
Blocks are 60-70% full on average . We have yet to see a continuous backlog lasting more than a few hours max. This conf backlog doesn't prevent tx from being processed unlike when the Visa/paypal network goes down and you cannot make a payment at all.
… which is controlled by China
People in China [b]partially [/b]Control one small aspect of the bitcoin ecosystem and why shouldn't they? They do represent 19% of the worlds population. This comment is both misleading and xenophobic.
… and in which the companies and people building it were in open civil war?
Most people are passionate but still friendly behind closed doors. The Blocksize debate has spurred decentralization of developer groups and new ideas which are good things. Sure there has been some unproductive infighting , but we will get through this and be stronger for it. "Civil wars" exist within and between all currencies anyways so this is nothing surprising.
Once upon a time, Bitcoin had the killer advantage of low and even zero fees, but it’s now common to be asked >to pay more to miners than a credit card would charge.
Credit cards charge 2.8% to 7% in the US and 5-8% in many other countries. Bitcoins once had fees up to 40 cents a tx , and for the past few years normal fees have been consistently between 2-8 pennies per tx on the chain and free off the chain.
Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners, just two of whom control more >than 50% of the hash >power. At a recent conference over 95% of hashing power was controlled by a handful of guys sitting on a single stage.
Mining pools are controlled by many miners and interests , not individuals. Miners also share the control with many other competing interests and are limited in their ability to harm the bitcoin ecosystem if they so choose.
They have chosen instead to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
This gives them a perverse financial incentive to actually try and stop Bitcoin becoming popular.
The Chinese miners want bitcoin to scale to at least 2MB in the short term, something that both Core and Classic accommodate. Bitcoin will continue to scale with many other solutions and ultimately payment channels will allow it to scale to Visa like levels of TPS.
The resulting civil war has seen Coinbase — the largest and best known Bitcoin startup in the USA — be erased >from the official Bitcoin website for picking the “wrong” side and banned from the community forums.
Coinbase was re-added to bitcoin.org. Mike conveniently left that important datapoint off.
has gone from being a transparent and open community to one that is dominated by rampant censorship
There are more subreddits, more forums , and more information than ever before. The blocksize debate does sometimes create divisions in our ecosystem but the information is all there and easy for anyone to investigate.
But the inability to get news about XT or the censorship itself through to users has some problematic effects.
The failure of XT has nothing to do with the lack of information. If anything there is too much information available , being repeated over and over , in many different venues.
One of them, Gregory Maxwell, had an unusual set of views: he once claimed he had mathematically proven >Bitcoin to be impossible. More problematically, he did not believe in Satoshi’s original vision.
Satoshi never intended to be used as an argument from authority and if he does he can always come back and contribute. We should not depend upon an authority figure but evidence, valid reasoning, and testing.
And indeed back-of-the-envelope calculations suggested that, as he said to me, “it never really hits a scale >ceiling” even when looking at more factors than just bandwidth.
Hearn's calculations are wrong. More specifically they do not take into account TOR, decentralization in locations with bandwidth limitations, bandwidth softcaps imposed by ISP's, the true scale of historical bandwidth increases, and malicious actors attacking the system with sophisticated attacks.
Once the 5 developers with commit access to the code had been chosen and Gavin had decided he did not want >to be the leader, there was no procedure in place to ever remove one.
The 45 developers who contributed to Bitcoin Core in 2015 could be replaced instantly if the community wanted with little effort. Ultimately, the nodes, miners and users control which code they use and no group of developers can force them to upgrade. In fact Bitcoin Core deliberately avoids and auto-update feature with their releases at the cost of usability to specifically insure that users have to actively choose all new features and can opt out simply by not upgrading. ... end of part one...
Mike’s bitcointalk presence began 1 day 53 minutes and 13 seconds after Satoshi’s bitcointalk presence ended. Almost exactly 1 day separating their profiles seemed odd to me especially considering the impact Mike had in development later on.
Why would Satoshi Nakamoto hide his real identity? The people who created the precursors to Bitcoin were not anonymous. Satoshi even referenced multiple influences by name in his whitepaper like Wei Dai, Ralph Merkle, and Adam Back. So why did the person behind Satoshi feel the need to remain anonymous? There doesn’t seem to be any precedent in the small niche of people who attempted to make digital/electronic cash. A lot of people are constantly regurgitating the idea that Satoshi knew how big Bitcoin would become and that Governments or nefarious people would want to hunt him down for his bitcoin holdings or for simply inventing bitcoin. In reality, Satoshi didn’t even know if his invention would gain traction. Satoshi didn’t know he would be one of a handful of users running bitcoin in the first year which would allow him to mine as many blocks as he did. Satoshi didn’t know how much bitcoin would actually be worth. So why would Mike Hearn hide is identity? Mike Hearn in mid August 2006 was hired on by Google as a Site Reliability Engineer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090514053312/http://mikehearn.wordpress.com:80/2006/08/) Why would an employee of Google secretly develop something? Well, Google themselves sum it up pretty nicely here: “As part of your employment agreement, Google most likely owns intellectual property (IP) you create while at the company. Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google.“ (https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ ) Here Mike was indeed fully aware of Google’s policy when he released bitcoinj as a Google copyrighted project under the Apache 2 license: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4236.msg61438#msg61438https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4236.msg61658#msg61658 Then here he is emailing Satoshi (himself :) a few hours after the bitcointalk announcement: “From: Mike Hearn [email protected] Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM To: Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] Hi Satoshi, I hope you are doing well. I finally got all the lawyers happy enough to release BitCoinJ under the Google name using the Apache 2 license: …. “ https://pastebin.com/JF3USKFT I wonder what Google would have done with Bitcoin had Hearn/Satoshi not been anonymous? Mike claiming he supposedly “coined the term SPV”. Or, did he? Here is Peter Todd https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/649413412158599168 and her is the reddit thread to go along with it: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n1ydp/peter_todd_on_twitter_mike_hearn_claiming_he/
The term “SPV” does not appear in the whitepaper but its meaning does. Simplified Payment Verification is section 8 of the whitepaper. Did Mike slip and just inadvertently hint to him being the real Satoshi? Upon further investigation Mike had claimed months earlier that he coined the term “SPV wallet”. https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e So he could have meant to say SPV wallet when Peter Todd was calling him out or maybe he did mean to say just “SPV”. Still not the smoking gun but interesting that he would throw that around knowing full well that Simplified Payment Verification was in the Whitepaper.
[After writing this up, Mike just released all his private Satoshi Emails through a user named CipherionX. Mike did show up in a reddit thread to confirm that they came from him and are indeed not fake. Bitcointalk link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2080206.0 Reddit link to Mike’s post: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6t2ci2/never_before_seen_mike_hearn_satoshi_nakamoto/dliizv6/ ] It is very plausible that in order to remain separate from the creator of Bitcoin that someone would in fact have email conversations between himself and alias as “proof” that the pseudonymous Bitcoin creator and Mike Hearn are completely different independent people. Of course this would only make sense if the emails were made public at some point. Well, Mike just made them public. Mike also attempted to divulge them to Charles Hoskinson in 2013 who did not release them to the public. If the dates can be trusted, Mike’s email leak serves as proof that he was there early on even if he was corresponding with himself ;) Besides the new email dump the only known public involvement was here on the sourceforge forum in October 2009: https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/thread/f4cd80640910240804m64ba45f1g216905fc9db16a2%40mail.gmail.com/#msg23827020 . Later on Mike did produce an email he sent to Satoshi In April of 2009 here in this thread: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/54-my-first-message-to-satoshi/ which does correspond with the email dump. Why did Mike not use Sourceforge as he posted openly so frequently in other project lists or forums? My best guess is that Mike figured he could be traced using multiple aliases on Sourceforge if an employee was so inclined to investigate so he switched it up and decided to have the fabricated conversations with himself through a more controlled environment.?????
What is odd about Mike’s involvement early on is that it doesn’t really parallel with his natural demeanor. He is very vocal and has an involved online presence yet he just really isn’t himself during the early stages of Bitcoin. Even his personal blog posts came to a halt in early 2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111130084418/http://mikehearn.wordpress.com:80/ For someone who was generally very active online before Bitcoin and then after Satoshi’s disappearence, I find it odd that there is a dead silence period from Mike Hearn while Satoshi existed online.
So it appears that Satoshi may have had either a rapport or at the least some familiarity with Hal. This lead me to Google Mike Hearn and Hal Finney together which turned up a nice find. Here, https://sourceforge.net/p/tboot/mailman/tboot-devel/?style=threaded&viewmonth=200807 Mike and Hal are talking about Trusted Computing back in July 2008, just months before the bitcoin whitepaper surfaced. Unfortunately I don’t quite fully understand Trusted Computing and the reason Mike Hearn was inquiring about it or how it would relate to early Bitcoin. However, I did also find this thread from Mike Hearn that Hal Finney later resurrected about TC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67508.0 And even more interesting, Hal Finney later wrote in his brief memoir of bitcoin, “Bitcoin and Me”, posted on the bitcointalk forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) that he was currently “working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets.” Was Mike Hearn originally researching a use for trusted computing in Bitcoin but never implemented it only to later pass it on to Hal FInney as a “suggestion”? Mike on Google+ posted a link to Hal’s TC project when he learned Hal passed away and linked to Hal’s post on BTCtalk (https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn ; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154290.0 )
I do admit the “hack on” arguement is the weakest evidence as it is somewhat common term. However not everyone used it in that context (such as Hal Finney) and it does add to a list of coincidences.
Another weak coincidence is Mike Hearns birthday. MIke’s birthday is April 17th, 1984. Satoshi’s birthday was chosen as April 5th, 1975. I don’t know about you, but a lot of times when I have to enter a birthday in a service where I don’t want them knowing the truth, I usually always use my real birth month with fake day and year.
According to Mike Hearn, Satoshi “communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving. He told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other things and that the project was in good hands.“ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145850.msg1558053#msg1558053 This is also backed up by the new email release here: https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET Mike- “I had a few other things on my mind (as always). One is, are you planning on rejoining the community at some point (eg for code reviews), or is your plan to permanently step back from the limelight?” Satoshi- “I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.” The above communication is supposedly the last time anyone heard from Satoshi and none other than Mike Hearn was the recipient. ** Calendar of Mike travelling vs Satoshi post history. It would make sense that Satoshi would post less or not at all when he traveled. Thoughts on the new email dump….draft notes… https://pastebin.com/wA9Jn100 December 27, Mike decides to email Satoshi. This is 2 weeks after Satoshi went silent on the forums and Mike joined the forum. He has been back into Bitcoin for less than a month and he is already working on a “Java implementation of the simplified payment verification, with an eye to building a client that runs on Android phones.“ Mike said he was working on a client on December 22 a week after joining the community By march 7 Mike had the Google “lawyers happy enough” about the bitcoinj release. Seems that within under 3 months Mike developed and released bitcoinj while also dealing with Google’s IP lawyers and copyright/licensing. Satoshi mentioned the e-bay marketplace feature twice: I started implementing a marketplace feature earlier that facilitates offering things for sale and taking orders, it's only half done though. A bit like e-bay but without auctions, just "buy now". Among other things, it would make it easy for anyone to offer currency exchange. https://pastebin.com/Na5FwkQ4 I was trying to implement an eBay style marketplace built in to the client. Publish/subscribe would be used for broadcasting product offers and ratings/reviews. Your reviews would be weighted by the blocks you've generated. I rightly abandoned it in favour of JSON-RPC, so other authors could implement it externally. The publish/subscribe "meet in the middle" mechanism was an interesting concept, but nothing remains that uses it. https://pastebin.com/JF3USKFT Satoshi sought guidance about EC-DSA and RSA key length April 18th 2009 Mike told Satoshi he works at Google, April 18th 2009 Mike Said they use protocol buffers “here at google” Jan 7 2011 Satoshi asked Mike if the client-only implementation would be Google proprietary. Jan 12th, 2011 Mike announced on bitcointalk that he worked for Google https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2745.msg37471#msg37471 Other searchables. Email addresses: [email protected][email protected] Freenode IRC “TD” Brother David WIlliam Hearn,
QR code alternatives (was: Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias) | Mike Hearn | Jul 20 2015
Mike Hearn on Jul 20 2015: Hey Thomas, Here are some thoughts on a third way we can tackle our BIP 70 usability problem sans servers: by finding an upgrade to QR codes that give us more space and then optimising the hell out of BIP70 to make it fit. Better QR codes Let's start with this paper, High Capacity Colored Two Dimensional Codes <http://proceedings2010.imcsit.org/pliks/79.pdf>. It develops an upgrade to standard QR codes that extend them with the use of colour. The resulting codes have ~4x the capacity but similar levels of scanning robustness. This paper is also interesting: DualCodes <https://books.google.at/books?id=O5a6BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=%22DualCodes:+Backward+Compatible+Multi-layer+2D-Barcodes%22&source=bl&ots=ql_G8iyXXi&sig=9-VwhFLbkfgh2Fi0tdM3AWOyajA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22DualCodes%3A%20Backward%20Compatible%20Multi-layer%202D-Barcodes%22&f=false> It works by overlaying one QR code on top of another using shades of grey. The resulting code is still scannable by older applications (backwards compatibility!) but an enhanced reader can also extract the second code. They explicitly mention digital signatures as a possible use case. In both cases the code does not appear to be available but the same approach was used: extend libqrcode for creation and ZXing for decoding (Android). We could ask the authors and see if they're willing to open source their work. BIP 70 has the potential to add many features. But most of them, even the extensions currently proposed only as ideas, can be expressed with relatively few bytes. So with a 4x boost in capacity, or a 2x boost with backwards compat, what could we do? Optimised BIP70 If we define our own certificate formats and by implication our own CAs, then we can easily make a certificate be 32 bytes for the ECC signature+length of the asserted textual identity, e.g. email address. Can we go smaller? Arguably, yes. 32 bytes for a signature is for Really Strong Security™ (a 256 bit curve), which gives 128 bits of security. If we are willing to accept that a strong adversary could eventually forge a certificate, we can drop down to a weaker curve, like a 128 bit cure with 64 bits of security. This is well within reach of, say, an academic team but would still pose a significant hurdle for run of the mill payment fraudsters. If these short CA keys expired frequently, like once a month, the system could still be secure enough. As we are defining our own PKI we can make CA keys expire however frequently we like, up to the expiry period of the BIP70 request itself. Thus certificates that expire monthly is not an issue if the wallet has a way to automatically refresh the certificate by using a longer term stronger credential that it keeps around on disk. If we accept a single payment address i.e. no clever tricks around merge avoidance, such a QR code could look like this: bitcoin:1aBcD1234....?x=serialized_payment_request However this requires text mode and wastes bytes at the front for the URI type. If we're willing to accept QR codes that can't be read by a standalone app and which requires an embedded reader, then we can just scrap the legacy and serialise a binary BIP70 request directly into the QR code. Andreas' wallet, for example, can already handle this because it has an embedded QR reader. I don't know what the situation on iOS is like. If we were to use the DualCodes system we could define the primary QR code as being an unsigned payment request, and the second layer as being the signature/pki data. Getting response data back to the recipient One reason to have a store/forward network is the "forward" part: we don't only want to host a static PaymentRequest, but also receive a private response e.g. for the memo field, or to implement the well known "Stealth Address" / ECDH in the payment protocol proposals: https://medium.com/@octskyward/ecdh-in-the-payment-protocol-cb2f81962c1b Stealth addresses try and (ab)use the block chain as a store/forward layer and break SPV in the process as well as wasting lots of resources. ECDH in BIP70 avoids those issues but at the cost of requiring a separate store-and-forward network with some notion of account privacy. These ideas come with another steep price: restoring a wallet from seed words is no longer possible. You must have the extra random data to calculate the private keys for money sent to you :( If you lose the extra data you lose the money. It can be fixed but only by having wallets regularly sweep the sent money to keys derived from the BIP32 seed, meaning privacy-hurting merging and extra traffic. I don't know of any way to solve this except by using some servers, somewhere, that store the Payment messages for people: potentially for a long period of time. If we have such servers, then having them host BIP70 requests is not a big extra requirement. I have imagined this being a p2p-ish network of HTTPS servers that accept POSTs and GETs. But if we are thinking about alternatives, it could also be a separate service of the existing Bitcoin P2P network. That's what OP_RETURN (ab)use effectively does. But as these messages don't really have to be kept forever, a different system could be used: Payment messages could be broadcast along with their transactions and stored at every node, waiting for download. But unlike regular transactions, they are not stored forever in a block chain. They are just written to disk and eventually erased, perhaps, ordered in a mempool like way where more fee attached == stored for longer, even though the nodes storing the data aren't actually receiving the fee. A signature over the Payment metadata using the same output keys as the transaction would bind them together for the purposes of broadcast, but doesn't need to be stored after that. As the data storage is just a helpful service but not fundamentally required, nodes could shard themselves by announcing in their addr messages that they only store Payment metadata for e.g. the half which have a hash starting with a one bit. And when outputs are seen being spent, the associated Payment metadata can be erased too, as by then it's fair to assume that the users wallet has downloaded the metadata and no longer cares about it. Of course you have then all the regular DoS issues. But any P2P network that stores data on the behalf of others has these. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150720/7b5c3cb0/attachment-0001.html> original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009488.html
A sketch of a store and forward network that can be used as an alternate communication channel for Bitcoin payments. Over the channel we should be able to anonymously send Bitcoin payments, payment requests, and even arbitrary messages. The idea is loosely based on Mike Hearn’s article ECDH in the Payment Protocol.
Privately sending and receiving payments from a lightweight wallet is hard.
Bloom filters and prefix filters, even when used correctly, offer very brittle privacy. Merging coins, in addition to associating previously unassociated transactions, will identify which addresses are in the filter if coinjoin is not used. To use them correctly requires somewhat awkward hacks that involve creating filters much larger than often needed and connecting to multiple peers/servers if additional filters are created. At present no wallet implements filtering correctly. Sending transactions directly to the recipient over a different channel removes the need to download transactions from the network. Filtering can still be used to query for block inclusion, but isn’t a requirement as this can be done on a one off basis from a different Tor identity each time.
Users should be able to attach a private message for the recipient to the transaction.
Currently, short memos can be attached to transactions, but they are publicly visible for everyone to see. By using an alternative channel we use can use the ‘memo’ field in the BIP70 payment message to attach private messages to transactions.
An alternate communication channel would enable person-to-person payment requests.
BIP70 is limited by several factors: To automatically download a payment request from another user, the sender’s computer needs to remain online (and accepting incoming connections) at all times. This is not feasible for end user wallets. Payment requests can be manually exported from the wallet and sent over email (or another channel) with the recipient manually importing the file into the wallet, but this clunky and offers poor UX. Additionally, the payment request model is currently a “pull” model. The ability to “push” a payment request to an end user would enable merchants to bill end users for monthly services. Utilizing an alternative channel would make payment requests seamless.
The communication would finally enable P2P coinjoin transactions.
At present there are only two coinjoin implementations and both are server based. Segregating coinjoin transactions by server means the pool of available participants is smaller than it need be leading to less robust mixing, longer mix times, and unnecessary centralization. A p2p communication channel could finally enable a single coinjoin protocol for all wallets.
The channel could be used for generic anonymous messaging.
Given the encrypted nature of the channel, it won’t be possible to limit messages to just payments and payment requests. As such, the channel could be extended to enable anonymous messaging between clients.
Why not Bitmessage?
Bitmessage seems like it would be ideal for this purpose, but there are a couple drawbacks. At present all nodes need to download all messages and sort through them. This creates a large overhead that is not appropriate for lightweight clients. There are proposals to add lite client support to Bitmessage, but they have not yet been implemented. More importantly the proof of work severely harms UX. The white paper suggests targeting a POW time of 4 minutes on an average computer (it currently takes around 1.5 to 2 minutes depending on the system). Compared to current sub-second bitcoin transaction times, Bitmessage would be a major step backwards for the user experience. Finally it’s a bit of a curious choice to require all nodes (or all nodes in a stream) to store all messages. Unlike Bitcoin, there is no consensus mechanism at play which requires all nodes to store all messages. Doing so precludes (absent breakthroughs in micro payments) applying market mechanisms to ration scarce resources (disk space) and requires a network run by volunteers using POW as an awkward hack to ration disk space.
Ideally the store and forward protocol would have the following characteristics:
All messages should be encrypted with only the recipient able to decrypt.
The sender and recipient should be hidden from passive observers.
The protocol should be able to scale to handle an extremely large number of messages.
The protocol should be able to prevent attackers from flooding the network with arbitrary messages.
Anti-Spam mechanisms should not noticeably harm UX.
The protocol should support lightweight queries and user-defined anonymity sets.
The protocol should support market mechanisms (where needed) to ration disk space.
Similar to Mike Hearn’s proposal, the protocol will be run on a network of servers. A user can upload a message to a server using HTTP POST and retrieve a message using a long polling GET. Rather than using an email-like network however, each server running this protocol will be a node in a distributed hash table (DHT) allowing the servers to query each other for messages they do not have. The following would be a typical message flow: Alice picks a reliable server (server A) and POSTs an encrypted message to it. Server A inserts the message’s key into the DHT*** Bob makes a GET request from server B. Server B queries the DHT to find the IP address of the server(s) storing the message. Server B connects to Server A and downloads the message. Server B forwards the message to Bob. In this protocol anyone will be able to run a server. Obviously, clients will need to pick a reliable server with the most uptime. Should a server go offline, the message would be undeliverable and the user would need to resend using a different server. There would be nothing stopping wallets themselves from being a node in the DHT, but doing so would require them to host their own messages, accept incoming connections, remain permanently online, and likely operate as a hidden service to remain private. Hence, why a network of servers is more attractive. ***In order for a server to serve a message to a client as soon as it’s inserted, the server needs to be made aware of DHT insertions by other servers. The topology of the Kademlia overlay makes for efficient broadcast messaging. Nodes can relay messages to one node per sub-tree who in turn relay it to their own sub-trees. Likely more than one relay node per sub-tree would need to receive the message to insulate from network errors.
Messages would be encrypted using a shared secret derived using ECDH and the key found in the user’s stealth address. Authentication of keys is beyond the scope of this protocol and would be left to wallet developers to figure out what works best.
Message tagging and anonymity sets
Each message would be tagged with a 160 bit number derived in part from the stealth address. The tag would also serve as the ‘key’ used for DHT insertions. Stealth addresses contain a 32 bit ‘prefix’ and one byte for the ‘length’. The message recipient uses the length parameter to define their anonymity set. For example, if a length of zero is used, the sender would use a random number as the tag and the recipient would download every message from the network and attempt to decrypt each one using his key. Very similar to how Bitmessage works. If a length of one is used, the sender would set the first bit in the message tag to the same bit (zero or one) of the stealth address prefix. The remaining bits in the tag would be random. The recipient would give the server his prefix and the server would return all the messages with tags starting with the same bit. Like before, the user would attempt to decrypt each message. This would effectively reduce the amount of messages the user needs to sort through by 50% (while also decreasing the anonymity set by 50%). Each additional bit of length reduces the number of returned messages (and anonymity set) by another 50%. A prefix of 4 bits, for example, would return about 6.25% of all messages in the network. A length of 32 bits would imply the user would only download her messages, minimizing bandwidth but allowing passive observes to know which (encrypted) messages were intended for her.
The network described here would scale much better than Bitmessage as the messages would not be stored by the entire network, but rather only by the server to which they were uploaded (and possibly other servers which voluntarily chose to download and store some messages locally for quicker access). Furthermore, as the on and off ramps to the network, the servers could (if needed) charge a small fee for their services, incentivizing people to start up additional servers when the load gets high and rationing disk space by price rather than proof of work.
Because messages are not stored by each node (like Bitmessage) we do not need to use a proof-of-work to prevent the network from being overrun with spam messages. Instead, it becomes the responsibility of each server to implement their own anti-spam measures and servers can employ the traditional tactics used by email servers (such as quotas). Implementing quotas without harming privacy is tricky but doable. The following is one example of how a sender quota system could be done without compromising privacy: A user creates an account with a server by filling out a captcha and receiving an account number. The client logs in with its account number sends a bunch of blinded tokens to the server. For each message under the quota, the server blind signs a token and returns it to the client. When sending a message, the client attaches an unblinded token. Server verifies its signature, saves the message locally, and inserts the message tag into the DHT. In this example the server can tell that the message was sent by someone who is under their quota, but it doesn’t know who. Alternatively, the server could eliminate the quota and charge a fee per N tokens to ration by price.
The network of servers would be subject to classical denial of service attacks. However, it will be the responsibility of each server to mitigate against denial of service attacks, not the protocol. Servers with low latency, high up-time, and robust anti-DDoS measures will attract more traffic, which may be a competitive advantage if the server is run on a for-profit model (i.e. leasing storage space).
The above protocol should satisfy all of ours goals.
All messages are encrypted with only the sender and recipient able to decrypt.
The sender’s identity is not attached to the message at all and the only a user-defined number of bits from the recipient address is attached to the message. In other words, no meaningful data is available to passive observers.
By splitting the message load among servers (possibly with a financial incentive), the network can scale to handle a very large number of messages.
Because the network is server based, servers can implement traditional anti-spam measures without harming user experience.
The protocol supports lightweight queries allowing the user to make the anonymity set/bandwidth tradeoff.
The protocol supports market based rationing mechanisms where necessary.
The Great Bitcoin Scaling Debate ATimeline Why have so many attempts to scale Bitcoins blockchain failed? This timeline chronicles the repeated attempts to scale Bitcoins blockchain, and details how each attempt has so far been unsuccessful. It covers all important dates in the scaling debate, focusing on how and why . trending; Mike Hearn Bitcoin 2017 Bitcoin . Mike Hearn Bitcoin 2017 . Dec ... Bitcoin’s single-threaded nature, whereby all transactions must be verified by all nodes canonically, inevitably leads to latency in a situation where it is massively adopted as a medium of ... Bitcoin as a medium of exchange; Will I earn money by mining bitcoin? Bitcoin as an investment; Storing Bitcoins ; Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism; A Cypherpunk's Manifesto; Community guidelines. Do not use URL shortening services: always submit the real link. Begging/asking for bitcoins is absolutely not allowed, no matter how badly you need the bitcoins. Only requests for donations to ... Twitter Facebook It was ten years ago today that Satoshi Nakamoto first submitted the Bitcoin whitepaper to the Metzdowd cryptography mailing list and started a. PARTNERSHIPS; ANNOUCEMENTS; LAUNCHES; STARTUPS; Search. The Block Magazine. PARTNERSHIPS; ANNOUCEMENTS; LAUNCHES; STARTUPS; Sunday, March 8, 2020 Home Blockchain Technology Bitcoin Turns 10: Inside the Journey of Radical Idea to $100 ... In the time since Hearn's departure, which BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen referred to as a "whiny ragequit," the bitcoin price has nearly doubled.. Bitcoin Price Rises Despite Network Congestion ...
The Best Short & Medium Length Haircuts Tutorials ...
In THIS video we're going to show you the easiest hairstyles you can use on medium length hair. Medium hairstyles for women are among the most versatile, bec... 💈 ️ REGAL GENTLEMAN BARBER EDUCATION Education for barbers, stylists, hairdressers and anyone interested in cutting men's hair. Become a Founding Member (Fre... Matt Fraser is America’s Top Psychic Medium and star of the hit television series on E! Entertainment. Attend an Online Group Reading: https://meetmattfraser... Medium Length Layered Haircut Subscribe: http://goo.gl/aWSkjE This medium layered length haircut is the perfect for any aged woman! It has great shape, isn't... hello people... how are you.. this is our new video.. we r upload new new video everyday.. we hope everyone like our video so please stay with us and subscri...