'Unrealistic': BIP 91 Creator James Hilliard Has Choice ...
Bitcoin price and SegWit: The cryptocurrency is surging ...
Bitcoin Price Rises due to BIP 91 Aplication – InfoCoin
BIP 91 Locks In: What This Means for Bitcoin and Why It's ...
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:
Miners BitFury and BTCC (responsible for over half of the pathetically low support for SegWit) turn out to be associated with Blockstream.
Now someone at another miner (James Hilliard u/lightsword at BitClub) has launched a "malleability attack" on Bitcoin, apparently in another desperate attempt to shore up support for the Blockstream's poorly-coded, dangerous, unpopular SegWit.
a low-priority, poorly coded fix to a non-problem called "transaction malleability"
another low-priority, poorly coded fix to a minor problem called "quadratic hashing"
a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB which is ridiculously tiny and would obviously lead to more congestion and delays (and more fighting and drama) within a month or two - exactly what a toxic dev like Greg (and the central bankers paying him) would love.
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:
You actually cannot "opt out" of SegWit because old nodes become "zombies" - incapable of verifying transactions. (So their soothing phrase "opt in" is meaningless.)
They claim SegWit is "fully tested" - but it's not: because SegWit's changes would also involve changing (and retesting) thousands of lines of code for wallets, exchanges and businesses, to support SegWit's dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH). So remember this when they trot out their lie attempting to claim that "SegWit has been tested" - the truth is: it hasn't.
Worst of all, SegWit's needless, dangerous, and irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH) does just that: it makes all transactions "anyone-can-spend", which means that SegWit would actually be worse than a "soft fork": SegWit would be an irreversible fork.
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:
Our roadmap upgrades Bitcoin as Satoshi intended: via a safe, simple hard fork - which avoids messy, dangerous, non-reversible "soft fork" hacks such as SegWit. (Blockstream hates Satoshi - notice how Greg now refuses to even say the name "Satoshi". Greg and Blockstream support the sad, anti-Satoshi forum r\bitcoin.)
Our roadmap doesn't permanently lock us in to a single incompetent, corrupt central-banker-funded dev team in order to get trivial "improvements" like a one-time bump to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and a fix for low-priority non-problems like malleability and quadratic hashing - in the Faustian bargain of a dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
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:
Let them enjoy their centrally planned, poorly-coded SegWit ("1MB 1.7MB blocksize - now with a dangerous, irreversible dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH)!!"), under the piss-poor "leadership" of their single, fragile, blind, centralized "dev" team of bitcoin-poor, fiat-funded devs enslaved by central bankers.
Let them enjoy watching their fees continue to climb exponentially - now already beyond $1 - another easily avoidable disaster predicted by everyone except them.
Let them enjoy watching their network continue to be perpetually congested - another easily avoidable disaster predicted by everyone except them.
Let them enjoy watching their users desert them in droves, while their networks seizes up and their hashpower and their market cap declines and their coin price eventually crashes.
Let them keep crooning to themselves that it's all gonna be better someday once they move everyone off the network which they've deliberately crippled, and start charging $100 fees for "settlement" on their vaporware Lightning Network ("p2p electronic cash!! only without the 'p2p' part and without the 'cash' part!!").
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:
We will continue to strengthen our code and our coin and our community - with decentralized debate and development - supporting Bitcoin users in the real Bitcoin marketplace, not central planners central bankers.
We will continue to reject the criminals and vandals pushing the poison-pill trojan-horse of SegWit with its dangerous, irreversible "Anyone-Can-Spend" Hack (ACSH).
“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 ... 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 ... In response, bitcoin saw a sharp price increase on Thursday due to the perceived forward progress, ... The latter is when Segwit activation is "all in the clear," as BIP 91 creator James Hilliard put it. That's when bitcoin's SegWit upgrade will be official, and an upcoming user-activated soft fork (UASF) proposal, BIP 148, superseded. Possible hiccups . But some community members, including ... The latter is when Segwit activation is “all in the clear,” as BIP 91 creator James Hilliard said. That’s when bitcoin’s SegWit upgrade will be official, and an upcoming user-activated soft fork (UASF) proposal, BIP 148, superseded. Now, what the possible setbacks may be. However, some members of the community, including respected bitcoin developers and mining pool operators, are ... “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 ...
Bitcoin price has many different support areas leaving room for BTC to consolidate for next move up. As always, it is a battle of the bulls vs. bears. With targets for btc price to $12k and down ... After the first Bitcoin Halving in November 2012 the price of Bitcoin crashed more than 80% a couple months later. How likely is such a Bitcoin dump after th... Here is the latest Bitcoin (BTC) price prediction. It's time to stop the confusion. Join Us!!! Join This Elite Group - Sign Up Here: https://www.huefinancial.com Follow us on Twitter @HueFin_News ... Bitcoin Live Btc Price Liquidation Watch 24/7 Bull vs Bear Pump or Dump Bitcoin Currency Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. It is a decentralized digital currency without a central bank or single ... This video represent history of BTC-USD exchange rate until 2019.07.11 Bitcoin price is like crazy right now. How much will rising up? and, How much will fal...