Will This Vulnerability Finally Compel ... - Bitcoin Magazine

If segwit2x was really not wanted by Blockstream and if the UASFers over at bitcoin were really against it, why is vocal UASF supporter James Hilliard working on Segwit2x??

submitted by GrumpyAnarchist to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

@MrHodl @timoncc @james_hilliard Mrhodl. If I showed you some lines in Bitcoin core, that contain segwit support, w… https://t.co/D3izHKRhDh - Crypto Insider Info - Whales's

Posted at: May 13, 2018 at 07:14PM
By:
@MrHodl @timoncc @james_hilliard Mrhodl. If I showed you some lines in Bitcoin core, that contain segwit support, w… https://t.co/D3izHKRhDh
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : https://ift.tt/2EU8PEX
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

[#910|+251|51] James Hilliard (BIP91 creator) ignored when requesting to join Segwit2x Slack channel. [/r/Bitcoin]

[#910|+251|51] James Hilliard (BIP91 creator) ignored when requesting to join Segwit2x Slack channel. [/Bitcoin] submitted by underpopular to underpopular [link] [comments]

Calling all #bitcoin engineers: 10 hours of excellent training materials from #bitcoinedge Dev++ now online. Thanks for giving back to the community @anditto_h @Ethan_Heilman @james_hilliard @jimmysong @jfnewbery @kallewoof @NicolasDorier @tdryja

Calling all #bitcoin engineers: 10 hours of excellent training materials from #bitcoinedge Dev++ now online. Thanks for giving back to the community @anditto_h @Ethan_Heilman @james_hilliard @jimmysong @jfnewbery @kallewoof @NicolasDorier @tdryja submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

If segwit2x was really not wanted by Blockstream and if the UASFers over at bitcoin were really against it, why is vocal UASF supporter James Hilliard working on Segwit2x?? /r/btc

If segwit2x was really not wanted by Blockstream and if the UASFers over at bitcoin were really against it, why is vocal UASF supporter James Hilliard working on Segwit2x?? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection | James Hilliard | Jun 07 2017 /r/bitcoin_devlist

User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection | James Hilliard | Jun 07 2017 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment | James Hilliard | May 22 2017 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment | James Hilliard | May 22 2017 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Shout out to James Hilliard for BIP91 and all the Core Devs for Segwit /r/Bitcoin

Shout out to James Hilliard for BIP91 and all the Core Devs for Segwit /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

FYI - James Hilliard's segsignal proposal: Activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4 /r/Bitcoin

FYI - James Hilliard's segsignal proposal: Activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4 /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

06-25 16:42 - 'There are actually several other competent devs currently contributing to the project, including Justin Langston, Mike Belshe, James Hilliard, Jeffrey Christopher, and others. Hell, even Luke-jr audited some of the new code thi...' by /u/paleh0rse removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min

'''
There are actually several other competent devs currently contributing to the project, including Justin Langston, Mike Belshe, James Hilliard, Jeffrey Christopher, and others. Hell, even Luke-jr audited some of the new code this morning and provided needed changes/fixes.
I wholeheartedly believe that they will all remain involved with the BTC1 project after the hardfork, and several Core contributors may even contribute code in the future.
There's no reason at all for them to simply fold up shop once the charter is realized.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: paleh0rse
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

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

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

Throwback - The Hong Kong signed agreement with Adam Back and other BTC maxi pads included James Hilliard of Bitclub

For the dipshit Gregory Maxwell who likes to point fingers at others - how about you point your finger at Adam Back President Blockstream (the company you founded) who signed the Hong Kong agreement along with his pal James Hilliard of Bitclub who managed their pool.
HK agreement: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff
Signed James Hilliard Pool/Farm Admin
https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/840274174631378945
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks and all that, you know
submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

[Megathread] On August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559), a new altcoin called Bcash (BCH) has been created using Bitcoin's transaction history. Bitcoin itself continues to function normally.

What is happening?

In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559) a new altcoin was created from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Bcash" (BCH) or "Bitcoin Cash" (BCC) depending on which wallet/exchange you ask. In order to avoid confusion with actual Bitcoin and other altcoins, we recommend readers refer to the new altcoin as "Bcash" (BCH).
As with all altcoins, Bcash is technically off-topic for the /Bitcoin subreddit. However, Bcash was created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of Bcash with some effort. Your Bitcoins are just as safe as they were before the chain split, but you should take care not to compromise your private keys if you wish to retrieve Bcash. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your Bcash, please be aware that consolidating your UTXOs will impact your privacy on both chains.
In order to help readers navigate this confusing situation and minimize disruption of relevant content, /Bitcoin has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Bcash. If you are wondering how to retrieve your new altcoin holdings, please read the discussion thoroughly as your questions may already have been answered. If you don't see a similar question, please be sure to mention your wallet method and preferred exchange so that other readers can help address your concerns. You are also invited to submit new threads to the /Bcash subreddit if you so choose.
If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet.
A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Bitcoin Cash” (and Selling It) is a must-read for anyone feeling particularly lost.

But I thought we avoided a chain split?

For those of you who thought we avoided a chain split with the activation of BIP91 a couple weeks ago, here's a very loose summary of what happened on the Segwit (BIP141, BIP148, BIP91) front:
  1. Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
  2. Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
  3. Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
  4. Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
  5. BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
  6. Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
  7. Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
  8. BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
  9. Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Bcash but with less safety precautions regarding replay protection
Despite all the progress we're making in scaling Bitcoin both on-chain and off-chain, the Bcash crew has decided to part ways with the Bitcoin project by creating a new altcoin. The key differences are that they are attempting to gut Segwit from their forked client, as well as increasing the deprecated max_block_size attribute to 8MB.

Various Announcements:

Electrum 1 - Electrum 2 - Trezor - Ledger - Coinbase - Breadwallet - Bitfinex - Airbitz - Blockchain.info - Exodus - Jaxx - Kraken - Bittrex - Greyscale - Yobit - Bitcoin Core - Bitstamp - [Mycelium]() - [GreenAddress]() - BitcoinTalk - (Reply in comments to add other services)

/Bitcoin wishes Bcash a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!

submitted by BashCo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

New BIP for the implementation of the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement (ie. New York/Silbert) includes BIP148 UASF (August 1st SegWit activation) and a 2mB hard-fork locking in 6 months thereafter

See Calvin Rechner's BIP: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal.
Signalling is via the string "COOP."
Here is some of the BIP in question:

Abstract

This document describes a virtuous combination of James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2], Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3], Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal, Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5], and hard fork safety mechanisms from Johnson Lau’s “Spoonnet”[6][7] into a single omnibus proposal and patchset.
...

Specification

Proposal Signaling
The string “COOP” is included anywhere in the txn-input (scriptSig) of the coinbase-txn to signal compatibility and support.
Soft Fork
Fast-activation (segsignal): deployed by a "version bits" with an 80% activation threshold BIP9 with the name "segsignal" and using bit 4... [with a] start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in.[2]
Flag-day activation (BIP148): While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected... This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) if the existing segwit deployment is not locked-in or activated before epoch time 1501545600. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in. While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.[3]
Hard Fork
The hard fork deployment is scheduled to occur 6 months after SegWit activates:
(HardForkHeight = SEGWIT_ACTIVE_BLOCK_HEIGHT + 26280)
For blocks equal to or higher than HardForkHeight, Luke-Jr’s legacy witness discount and 2MB limit are enacted, along with the following Spoonnet-based improvements[6][7]:

Deployment

Deployment of the “fast-activation” soft fork is exactly identical to Hilliard’s segsignal proposal[2]. Deployment of the “flag-day” soft fork is exactly identical to Fry’s BIP148 proposal[3]. HardForkHeight is defined as 26280 blocks after SegWit is set to ACTIVE. All blocks with height greater than or equal to this value must adhere to the consensus rules of the 2MB hard fork.

Backwards compatibility

This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight November 15th, 2017.
To prevent the risk of building on top of invalid blocks, miners should upgrade their nodes to support segsignal as well as BIP148.
The intent of this proposal is to maintain full legacy consensus compatibility for users up until the HardForkHeight block height, after which backwards compatibility is waived as enforcement of the hard fork consensus ruleset begins.
I will expound upon this later, but I support this proposal. Primarily because it includes BIP148 UASF, secondarily because it includes a 2mB blocksize increase, which I support in principle (I am a big blocker but opposed to divergent consensus.)
submitted by AltF to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

Bitclub is unintentionally launching a malleability attack, there is much more to this story

Hey all,
Let me introduce myself. I am Joshua J. Bouw or gritt-n-auld (grittenald as well). I want to post the disclaimer that I didn't meddle much within the Bitclub Network but I was working with them on Clubcoin until January of this year.
I guess I could provide this proof as a link between me and Clubcoin https://www.np.reddit.com/ClubcoinCo/ which is Bitclub Network's PoS digital currency.
Misconception 1: Joby Weeks isn't the guy that runs Bitclub Network. There is a group of guys. I don't know if he is going around saying that or whatever that he is the sole guy. He is def an integral part. Hence the "Club" part of the name as it was intentionally made for friends and friends of friends which kind of grew into this massive multi million monster.
Misconception 2: I spoke to the tech guys and the main guys of Bitclub Tonight after not speaking to them since January to ask them "Wtf are you guys doing". They responded that they have no idea whats going on. I can also confirm that they have nobody on staff that is capable of conceiving an attack such as this.
Now, I may feel like a whistle blower here but this needs to be said, Yoshi of Bitmain BitmainWarranty (edit: Which isn't Bitmain, new revelation a user pointed out below) runs Bitclub Pool (edit: Another revelation being that lightsword James HIlliard an employee at BitmainWarranty is helping out). The ONLY people that have access to that is Bitmain Yoshi and James Hilliard of BitmainWarranty. Bitclub has also openly told me that they would follow the industry decision a while ago. How ironic is that? I noticed that some people have said that they flagged for Segwit support but I am unsure of that.
There are pictures floating around of the guys of Bitclub and Yoshi on the net. There are articles listing Yoshi as a manager at Bitclub Network. Being in the 'know' of Bitclub I know for sure he is apart of it and what he does.
One thing that I have noticed in this developing story is that it spawned from the post on Medium and then people speculated "why" and now that "why" became a "they are doing it intentionally to promote Segwit". No, no they are not.
I have a theory, that there is someone rogue trying to cause harm. A few of my friends have personally determined that this is deliberate as have others. I know for certain it wasn't Bitclub but someone at BitmainWarranty or something else entirely.
I guess I'll end this with a convo I had with a guy at Bitclub when I asked them WTF and linked them a few articles and explained what happened (if you are reading this, sorry man, don't be pissed at me, I am trying to make the community understand instead of witch hunting the MLM guys because MLM is "bad" m'kay?):
--- SNIPPED A BUNCH OF STUFF PRIOR ABOUT NEWS ARTICLES ETC. ---
[7:20:20 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: People in the chat rooms are saying that it is you guys protesting Bitcoin Unlimited because Segregated Witness is the only one that can stop a malleability attack such as that.
[7:36:55 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: https://www.np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ylfn3/warning_issued_reports_say_a_big_miner_is/
[7:39:11 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: https://www.np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ykl4g/bitclub_why_are_you_doing_malleability_attack_now/
[8:12:37 PM] -------: I don't know why Yoshi would do that.
[8:13:00 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: That is what confussed me as well, I was like "Wtf, this seems so out of line" because they are signalling for BU
[8:13:18 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: Unless they fucked up the code for the signalling on Bitclub's end
[8:13:24 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: which is what I am speculating
[8:14:01 PM] -------: I have no idea. I sent it to Yoshi an hour ago but haven't heard back yet
[8:14:31 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: Yeah tons of my friends sent it to me and I told them, "There is no way in hell they would be wanting to do anything wrong to the Bitcoin network"
[8:15:39 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: He should send off whatever he did to someone to write a BIP to protect against it lol
[8:24:18 PM] -------: Could be a hack to cause drama
[8:24:24 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: That too.
[8:24:30 PM] -------: I wouldn't put anything past Roger
[8:32:01 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: If it is a hack, this is wow, sophisticated. Everyone thought that all those issues were patched. So, to have someone find a new one, and then deploy it on a secure server, that is intense.
[8:37:10 PM] -------: How the fuck would we know to do it. lol
[8:42:14 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: lol I was thinking that too lmao
Anyways, I'm exhausted, tired, and going to bed. Just trying to clear up misconceptions. Say what you will, I'm doing my own thing now and trying to approach this as openly as possible. There is the potential for everything naturally but I know for sure this isn't intentional on their behalf. I think they will make a statement once they find out what the hell is happening.
Edit: Refusing to post this to /bitcoin due to censorship of everything. Long live BU, long live uncensored Bitcoin.
EDIT2: I am NOT BLAMING Roger Ver or Yoshi at BitmainWarranty nor the guys at Bitclub. I have no idea what is happening.
EDIT3: I would like to extend an apology to Bitmain for not knowing that Bitmain and BitmainWarranty were separate.
submitted by Grittenald to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

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

Kevin Pan Manager - AntPool

Anatoly Legkodymov CEO - A-XBT

Larry Salibra - Bitcoin Association Hong Kong

Leonhard Weese - Bitcoin Association Hong Kong

Cory Fields - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Johnson Lau - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Luke Dashjr - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Matt Corallo - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Peter Todd - Bitcoin Core Contributor

Kang Xie - Bitcoin Roundtable

Phil Potter - Chief Strategy Officer Bitfinex

Valery Vavilov - CEO BitFury

Alex Petrov - CIO BitFury

Jihan Wu - Co-CEO Bitmain

Micree Zhan - Co-CEO Bitmain

James Hilliard - Pool/Farm Admin BitmainWarranty

Yoshi Goto - CEO BitmainWarranty

Alex Shultz - CEO BIT-X Exchange

Han Solo - CEO Blockcloud

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

Bobby Lee - CEO BTCC

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

Robin Yao - CTO BW

Obi Nwosu - Managing Director Coinfloor

Mark Lamb - Founder Coinfloor

Wang Chun - Admin F2Pool

Marco Streng - CEO Genesis Mining

Marco Krohn - CFO Genesis Mining

Oleksandr Lutskevych - CEO GHash.IO & CEX.IO

Wu Gang - CEO HaoBTC

Leon Li - CEO Huobi

Zhang Jian - Vice President Huobi

Eric Larchevêque - CEO Ledger

Jack Liao - CEO LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange

Star Xu - CEO OKCoin

Jack Liu - Head of International OKCoin

Guy Corem - CEO Spondoolies-Tech

Pindar Wong - Sponsor"

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

Finally a real chance for the Core team and miners to build some trust

It feels like the Cold War between Russia and the United States. Not a perfect analogy and in the long run things could be better but at times the world was at the point of a nuclear confrontation (anyone researching the topic will see how real it was!)
The point is that eventually, it lead to trust. Any negotiation that is fueled by ideology needs some trust.
Support for segwit may be what it takes. If the miners can accept BIP 148 USAF segwit nodes (rather than require segwit2x only) and Core agrees to work on 2MB HF with best implementation (which will probably be better than segwit2x or an enhanced version) We may build trust and get past this scaling debate.
James Hilliard's merged BIP91 may be the first gesture. Now is time for Core to show some goodwill.
The good news is that everyone wants "bitcoin" to succeed the debate is what it will become, control, politics, etc.
Will Core agree to 2MB if segwit is activated as a soft fork and compatible with BIP 148?
submitted by Sonicthoughts to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

bitcoin-dev is bubbling with confusion & dissent about BIP 148-149 and the like.

if any of these nonsense will be implemented , it will be the negation of everything greg , adam, wladimir and the rests preached and tried to rationalize about ' consensus ' in the last years .
just a sampling :
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014520.html [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable - Tao Effect
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014508.html [bitcoin-dev] User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection - James Hilliard
submitted by realistbtc to btc [link] [comments]

User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection | James Hilliard | Jun 07 2017

James Hilliard on Jun 07 2017:
Due to the proposed calendar(https://segwit2x.github.io/) for the
SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory
signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another
option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug
1st BIP148 activation date.
The splitprotection soft fork is essentially BIP91 but using BIP8
instead of BIP9 with a lower activation threshold and immediate
mandatory signalling lock-in. This allows for a majority of miners to
activate mandatory SegWit signalling and prevent a potential chain
split ahead of BIP148 activation.
This BIP allows for miners to respond to market forces quickly ahead
of BIP148 activation by signalling for splitprotection. Any miners
already running BIP148 should be encouraged to use splitprotection.
BIP: splitprotection
Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
Title: User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
Author: James Hilliard
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI:
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-05-22
License: BSD-3-Clause
 CC0-1.0 
==Abstract==
This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority
of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
==Definitions==
"existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
==Motivation==
The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP
provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.
This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
hashpower before BIP148 activation. Due to time constraints unless
immediately deployed BIP91 will likely not be able to enforce
mandatory signalling of segwit before the Aug 1st activation of
BIP148. This BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of
SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date. Since
the primary goal of this BIP is to reduce the chance of an extended
chain split as much as possible we activate using a simple miner
majority of 65% over a 504 block interval rather than a higher
percentage. This BIP also allows miners to signal their intention to
run BIP148 in order to prevent a chain split.
==Specification==
While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
will be rejected.
==Deployment==
This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" with a 65%(this can be
adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
"splitprotecion" and using bit 2.
This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since
mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch
time 1501545600) regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its
own signalling threshold. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit
is locked-in.
=== Reference implementation ===
// Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
Consensus::Params& params)
{
LOCK(cs_main); return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params, 
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
}
// SPLITPROTECTION mandatory segwit signalling.
if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SPLITPROTECTION, versionbitscache) ==
THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN &&
 !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && 
// Segwit is not locked in
 !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) // 
and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == 
VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & 
VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must 
signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
} 
}
// BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.
int64_t nMedianTimePast = pindex->GetMedianTimePast();
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
 (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && 
// Segwit is not locked in
 !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) ) 
// and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == 
VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & 
VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must 
signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
} 
}
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:splitprotection-v0.14.1
==Backwards Compatibility==
This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
November 15th, 2017. This deployment is also compatible with the
existing BIP148 deployment. This BIP is compatible with BIP91 only if
BIP91 activates before it and before BIP148. Miners will need to
upgrade their nodes to support splitprotection otherwise they may
build on top of an invalid block. While this bip is active users
should either upgrade to splitprotection or wait for additional
confirmations when accepting payments.
==Rationale==
Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
in a backwards compatible way. We also use a BIP8 style timeout to
ensure that this BIP is compatible with BIP148 and that BIP148
compatible mandatory signalling activates regardless of miner
signalling levels.
By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
activate without needing to release a new deployment. As we approach
BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have
a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
==References==
*[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html
Mailing list discussion]
*[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
P2SH flag day activation]
*[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
*[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
*[[bip-0091.mediawiki|BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF]]
*[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
*[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
Version 0 Witness Program]]
*[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
*[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]]
*[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
*[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
==Copyright==
This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
CC0 1.0 Universal.
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014508.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Understanding Bitcoin - YouTube Bitcoin Q&A: BitPay and BIP-70 controversy BIP 91  Will Bitcoin Split ? - YouTube Bitcoin Edge Dev++ 2017 - YouTube

View James Hilliard’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. James has 3 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover James ... “Nutty.” No, developer James Hilliard isn’t describing his lunch. Rather, that’s his choice of description for Segwit2x, the controversial technical roadmap announced by bitcoin’s startups and miners in May, and that has been the center of widespread debate ever since.. Like many developers, Hilliard is openly critical of the proposal and the timelines it is seeking to impose on ... Market Wrap: Bitcoin Clings to $9,200 While Ethereum Transactions Soar. Daniel Cawrey Jul 20, 2020. Satoshi Nakamoto. Whale Alert Identifies 1.125 Million BTC as Satoshi’s Stash. William Foxley ... A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Core contributor James Hilliard discovered an exploit in Bitmain’s S15 firmware. The pseudonymous Twitter user 00whiterabbit, also known simply as “john,” subsequently wrote exploit code based on Hilliard’s findings. A video proving that the exploit code worked was shared on Hilliard’s Twitter account last week. “Nutty.” No, developer James Hilliard isn’t describing his lunch. Rather, that’s his choice of description for Segwit2x, the controversial technical roadmap announced by bitcoin’s ...

[index] [11193] [13677] [21781] [37249] [17176] [27471] [49342] [28679] [17254] [48491]

Understanding Bitcoin - YouTube

Bitcoin Edge Dev++ tutorial track is designed for developers aiming to help them get close and personal with Bitcoin and Blockchain related technologies. In this (nearly 2-day long course) you ... Moderated by Tone Vays, our panel discuss the various lessons learnt over the years by those active in the bitcoin community. Understanding Bitcoin Malta - Day 1. Bitcoin improvement proposal (BIP) 91, solved bitcoins scaling problem by adding a piece of code to each new block of bitcoins they generate. Will bitcoin Sp... Understanding Bitcoin; Videos Playlists; Channels; Discussion; About; Home Trending History Get YouTube Premium Get YouTube TV Best of YouTube Music Sports Gaming ... Note: This video was recorded prior to James Hilliard's post that he has discovered "a class of BIP70 implementation flaws that have a security impact," which was not discussed here but ...

#