Bitcoin Cash Leading Dev Announces Bitcoin ABC is "Moving

Official Spreadcoin Reddit | Decentralize Everything | Decentralized Block-Explorer Coming

Spreadcoin is a crypto-currency project that strives to remain true to the principles of decentralization instilled by its original mastermind developer, Mr. Spread. After Mr. Spread left, the current developer, Georgem, took the lead and is working on his own implementation of Service Nodes: an overlay network that will eventually be used to run decentralized services and to incentivize the operation of full Bitcoin nodes.
[link]

Crypto Devs

The official source for Crypto-related Developer Discussion, Technical Discussion and News.
[link]

Gabriel Cardona (lead of developer services at Bitcoin.com) is creating a new full node implementation written in Rust.

Gabriel Cardona (lead of developer services at Bitcoin.com) is creating a new full node implementation written in Rust. submitted by throwawayo12345 to btc [link] [comments]

#crypto #cryptonews #bitcoin @nocroom #Gabriel Cardona (lead of developer services at Bitcoin.com) is creating a new full node implementation written in Rust.

submitted by PooPoster1 to Cryptoandme [link] [comments]

For new users, Bitcoin didn't used to have so much vitriol. Before Gavin stepped down as lead developer, people actually got along and were excited together.

After Gavin Andresen stepped down, the power vacuum was filled with Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream). Wladimir van der Laan became the "official" lead dev, however, he has not been a leader in any way. Wladimir has essentially let developers who were/are paid by Blockstream manipulate him into believing Segwit was good and on-chain is bad. Or to say that changes require 100% consensus, which gives Blockstream-paid devs a veto.
Without the selfless leadership that Gavin had provided, Bitcoin started to have code gatekeepers who made sure that only code that aligned with their own economic beliefs got in. Greg Maxwell is that gatekeeper and he has openly admitted to it. The debates about the right approach stopped happening.
This resulted in a state of permissioned-only development and almost no new developers have been welcomed to work on Bitcoin outside of the sphere of who agree with the path of just a handful of people.
Development in a decentralized protocol should be permissionless and completely decentralized so that the best ideas win. Instead BitcoinCore became a cesspool of centralization where the blocksize issue was largely ignored for years despite Gavin saying many times in 2015 that it was time to raise the maximum blocksize.
Before this all happened, Bitcoin was incredibly exciting. It felt like we had something special that nobody else knew about but everyone in the world would soon be using. The toxicity and serious politics didn't start until Blockstream entered and starting paying/corrupting "independent" BitcoinCore developers. I can't say if it was the cause, but it is correlated with that exact time. You can't expect someone who is being paid by a company to do something against that company. You would expect such a person who did to no longer be paid by that company.
Around the same time, the censorship at bitcoin started. Bitcoin's development could no longer be discussed freely and almost anything other than what BitcoinCore wanted was considered an "altcoin" and would get you banned. Not only censorship but at some point propaganda also started. The Dragon's Den was revealed this April but I'm sure had been operating long before that.
http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07
They just have a secret channel where they organize their PR and trolling campaigns. Many people have talked about it (more than 5 people) and it's alluded to in various places which are publicly accessible, since it's basically where a lot of decisions around PR happens.
I'm extremely upset that they are attacking me for going to the press when they participate in far more underhanded tactics, and all of Core knows full well what they're doing if not actively contributing.
BitcoinCore's software used to be open source - and technically it still is - but only in the sense that you can copy and diverge rather than get any real fixes/changes into BitcoinCore code.
After Segwit2X I hope that we have learned a few lessons:
submitted by Annapurna317 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Lead Developer Insists No Fork in Sight - BCH News, "There have been recent speculations that a Bitcoin Cash fork is imminent but Sachet said that even though there are disagreements within the BCH community the community is still aligned in most of its core objectives"

Bitcoin Cash Lead Developer Insists No Fork in Sight - BCH News, submitted by Indic02 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Lead Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash - Bitcoin News

Lead Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash - Bitcoin News submitted by uburbia to btc [link] [comments]

Monero [XMR]’s lead developer elucidates on Bitcoin [BTC] death spiral - AMBCrypto News

Monero [XMR]’s lead developer elucidates on Bitcoin [BTC] death spiral - AMBCrypto News submitted by ulros to fbitcoin [link] [comments]

Monero [XMR]’s lead developer speaks about Bitcoin [BTC] as a real alternative to fiat currency - AMBCrypto News

Monero [XMR]’s lead developer speaks about Bitcoin [BTC] as a real alternative to fiat currency - AMBCrypto News submitted by ulros to fbitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Lead Developer Insists No Fork in Sight - BCH News, "There have been recent speculations that a Bitcoin Cash fork is imminent but Sachet said that even though there are disagreements within the BCH community the community is still aligned in most of its core objectives"

Bitcoin Cash Lead Developer Insists No Fork in Sight - BCH News, submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Satoshi's Successor Condemns Current Bitcoin Lead Developer Maxwell - Dash Force News

Satoshi's Successor Condemns Current Bitcoin Lead Developer Maxwell - Dash Force News submitted by thedesertlynx to dashpay [link] [comments]

Darknet drama hits a new high on Bitcointalk as "former Silk Road lead developer" announces Bitcoin auction for hundreds of thousands of customer details, transaction records, personal messages and passwords from the recently deceased online drugs supermarket. Developing...

submitted by m-a-t-t_ to Drama [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Lead Developer’s New Token: Metronome

Bitcoin Lead Developer’s New Token: Metronome submitted by leftok to atbitcoin [link] [comments]

Lead Developer Amaury Schet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash - Bitcoin News

Lead Developer Amaury Schet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash - Bitcoin News submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

New Bitcoin-Inspired Project From Gavin Andresen, Former Bitcoin Lead Developer

New Bitcoin-Inspired Project From Gavin Andresen, Former Bitcoin Lead Developer submitted by Lukovka to btc [link] [comments]

For new users, Bitcoin didn't used to have so much vitriol. Before Gavin stepped down as lead developer, people actually got along and were excited together. /r/btc

For new users, Bitcoin didn't used to have so much vitriol. Before Gavin stepped down as lead developer, people actually got along and were excited together. /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

New Bitcoin-Inspired Project From Gavin Andresen, Former Bitcoin Lead Developer

New Bitcoin-Inspired Project From Gavin Andresen, Former Bitcoin Lead Developer submitted by CryptoCurrencyNews to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed' /r/news

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed' /news submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed' /r/news

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed' /news submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

[Hiring] (New York City) Bitcoin Exchange and ECN, Coinsetter is looking for a Lead Java Developer... We want you!

Company Description
Coinsetter is a firm at the forefront of Bitcoin trading technology development. We have built a high performance Bitcoin ECN and exchange to support active traders, Wall Street institutions, and more. Our New York City-based platform offers millisecond latency trading with deep liquidity sourced from other global exchanges. Combined with unparalleled customer service and legal compliance, there is no better option for serious Bitcoin trading. This is an opportunity to be part of green-field development, to be deeply involved in architectural decisions and to work on cutting-edge software that could literally change the world!
Job Description
Working directly with the CTO and a small team, you will be responsible for developing the FIX API, trading systems and back-end components for our platform. You will also be responsible for leading a team of developers, ensuring quality of work and efficiency of the development process. Your work will directly touch on areas such as order processing, matching and routing, real-time data streaming and transaction processing, market data feeds, caching, and large data design.
Salary & Benefits
Requirements and Desired Skill-Sets
Additional Desired Skills
Education Requirements
Please send all resumes to [email protected]
submitted by josiah__Coinsetter to forhire [link] [comments]

[Hiring] (New York City) Bitcoin Exchange and ECN, Coinsetter is looking for a Lead Java Developer... We want you!

Company Description
Coinsetter is a firm at the forefront of Bitcoin trading technology development. We have built a high performance Bitcoin ECN and exchange to support active traders, Wall Street institutions, and more. Our New York City-based platform offers millisecond latency trading with deep liquidity sourced from other global exchanges. Combined with unparalleled customer service and legal compliance, there is no better option for serious Bitcoin trading. This is an opportunity to be part of green-field development, to be deeply involved in architectural decisions and to work on cutting-edge software that could literally change the world!
Job Description
Working directly with the CTO and a small team, you will be responsible for developing the FIX API, trading systems and back-end components for our platform. You will also be responsible for leading a team of developers, ensuring quality of work and efficiency of the development process. Your work will directly touch on areas such as order processing, matching and routing, real-time data streaming and transaction processing, market data feeds, caching, and large data design.
Salary & Benefits
Requirements and Desired Skill-Sets
Additional Desired Skills
Education Requirements
Please send all resumes to [email protected]
submitted by josiah__Coinsetter to jobbit [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags & Clear Indications of Scumbaggery And Scambuggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Very Much Updated Since 1st Posting. Please Let Me Know What I’ve Missed Or Add Links. Repost, Due To Strange Disappearance of 90% Of My Post.

My Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags & Clear Indications of Scumbaggery And Scambuggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Very Much Updated Since 1st Posting. Please Let Me Know What I’ve Missed Or Add Links. Repost, Due To Strange Disappearance of 90% Of My Post.
Not going to add to my existing paranoia by speculating, but here it is updated...
Here’s my Top 22 list of suspicious shenanigans and red flags surrounding the COVID narrative:

  1. The Imperial College Death data - Neil Ferguson and Gates-funded Imperial College, London Model that ‘persuaded’ Johnson and Trump to lockdown. Projected 500K deaths in UK and 2.2m deaths in US, EVEN WITH LOCKDOWN. Less than 10% accuracy but 110% alarmist, and evidence that the coding was deliberately flawed and designed to inflate numbers. Gates funding everyone involved in the staged 'debacle'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164121/Professor-predicted-500-000-Britons-die-coronavirus-accused-having-patchy-record.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/coding-led-lockdown-totally-unreliable-buggy-mess-say-experts/
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Ferguson, with a terrifyingly consistent track record for hyping minor viruses that fail to transpire into pandemics (Swine Flu, Bird Flu, BSE etc), failing upwards as a ‘safe pair of hands‘.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11565369/useless-professor-neil-ferguson-antonia-staats/
EDIT: the material below has now disappeared twice, so I’m reposting with the 95% that disappeared some minutes ago....
2) Ferguson’s blasé attitude to his affair during lockdown - clearly not too worried for his lovers’ family, if he genuinely believed COVID was a threat. No "error of judgement", just a man who knew there was nothing to fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/ministers-hypocrisy-over-neil-ferguson-lockdown-affair
3) Hospitals cleared of patients in readiness for a pandemic that never came. Desperate for cash, doctors and nurses were financially incentivised to put down patients dying with/ of COVID on death certificates to gain payments. In US $13,000 per patient, and $39,000 per patient on ventilator etc.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72070/this-is-how-much-hospitals-are-making-if-patients-have-coronavirus/index.html
Footage of empty hospitals worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrJ9yaUOVKs
Nurses furloughed, sent home for suspected virus without testing. Nurses - with nothing better to do - on TikTok etc:
Nurses slammed for filming TikTok showing them carrying coronavirus 'body-bag':
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nurses-slammed-filming-tiktok-showing-21960411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMHU6MtPVqQ etc
4) Games played with age and numbers, proof that only the elderly and very sick elderly were dying, but less of pneumonia and flu than in previous years. Median age of 79 in US and 82 in UK. Meanwhile whole country on lockdown.
"The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality."
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
(table from 2/7 down the page...)
5) When this became apparent, initial scare stories in press about children dying of virus, later proven to have no merit, just to ensure the hysteria was generalised. Meanwhile, probability of a child dying from the 'virus' is 35m to 1.

https://preview.redd.it/ufir9p8nx8c51.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=32ab3b0b0a83f3010abd9c6baf381f589bcc7c9b
"The second row shows that 2 deaths have been recorded among over 7 million school children aged between 5 and 14 (around 1 in 3.5 million), an extremely low risk — although additional deaths may be reported following coroners’ investigations. Over the last five years, there has been an average of 94 deaths registered over this 9-week period for those aged 5–14, and so the 2 Covid deaths represents only 2% of the normal risk faced by this group. That is, whatever average risk they would have faced in these 9 weeks if Covid had never existed — a risk which was extraordinarily low — was increased by Covid by only 2%."
from: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/kawasaki-like-disease-affecting-children-caused-coronavirus/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8264135/UK-says-children-died-syndrome-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8316223/Up-100-British-children-mysterious-inflammatory-disease-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8278963/Ill-youngsters-directly-exposed-corona-victims-refused-tests-medics.html
6) The ludicrous claim that they had never considered economic and psychological DEATH toll of lockdown.
There was a press conference in June on BBC, where they said "saving lives" from the virus was considered more important. Hard to believe, but I can't find the footage yet...
"One of the most consistent themes that emerges from the minutes of SAGE meetings is how the Government repeatedly expected its scientists to account for the economic impact of lockdown restrictions – even though SAGE was not doing any economic modelling."
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/03/sagegate-part-one-treasury-and-downing-street-advisors-delayed-covid-19-lockdown/
7) Doctors globally openly being told they can save paperwork and earn money by basing cause of death on ASSUMPTION of COVID, based on the vaguest of pretexts and symptoms.
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid19-cause-death-certificate-pcom-20200401.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-vax-doctor-covid-19-death-certificates-984407/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlGkCABfyLw
Also, from the UK...Health Secretary Matt Hancock calls for urgent review into coronavirus death data in England.
It follows confirmation from Public Health England that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724
8) The propaganda campaign against any form of alternative to vaccine (Vitamin C and D, African cures, HCQ etc)
“The Government’s leading body for Covid19 drug trials – led by the controversial character Professor Peter Horby – Oxford’s Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health and heading the vaccine programme - stands accused of grossly misleading negative trial results for the coronavirus management drug Hydroxychloroqhine. (Conflict of interest, surely?)
The lead story in today’s France Soir – a long-respected and unaligned French daily – presents compelling evidence to suggest that the Whitehall/Cabinet Covid19 “advice” team cannot be trusted….and raises yet more doubts about BBC complicity in a false Coronavirus narrative.”
https://jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/explosive-more-uk-covid-experts-facing-serious-data-manipulation-charges/
http://www.francesoir.fsociete-sante/remdesivir-une-molecule-dinteret-therapeutique-tres-discutable-sur-le-covid-19-partie ( in French)
The [Lancet’s] claim that hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of death in Covid-19 patients has been used by rivals as a stick to beat the US President, who has himself been taking the drug and hailed it a 'game-changer' in the war on coronavirus.
Mounting doubts over the study's reliability culminated yesterday when the authors retracted their study from the Lancet medical journal, whose editorial standards have also been thrown into question.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391779/Lancet-paper-warned-against-Covid-19-drug-flares-accusations-political-point-scoring.html
“The Deputy Chief Investigator of the Recovery Trial, Prof. Martin Landray, gave an interview to France-Soir. What he revealed was quite remarkable.
Firstly, the mortality rate of the hydroxychloroquine patients was a staggering 25.7%.
The recommended hydroxychloroquine dose for an adult in the UK is no more than 200 — 400 mg per day. In France, 1800 mg per day is considered to be lethal poisoning.”
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
https://time.com/5840148/coronavirus-cure-covid-organic-madagasca
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vitamin-c-myth.html
9) The saturation of Gates into the narrative at every level. His hallowed and unquestioned presence in media as expert, the only Moses who can lead us out of this wilderness with his magic potions, release us from our prisons with his benevolence. His financial connections through BMGF to NIH, CDC, WHO, BBC, Guardian, CNN etc and of course every pharmaceutical company in existence....
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Amazing Polly (pretty much every video this year):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm19xYwJ2nQ
BBC compromised:

“Transforming lives through media”? Gates and the CIA? Can we give up the pretence that neutral Auntie speaks for - or represents - us and our best interests?


Charities and foundations - without transparency, oversight and apparently universally trusted. Call your genocidal plans ‘charity’ and not only will you look like a philanthrApist, but people will even donate to their own demise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
EDIT: For further information, I just found this webpage:
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/revealed-bbc-charity-receives-millions-in-funding-from-gates-foundation/
UK Guardian compromised:
Hear the Guardian is regrettably letting 180 staff go this week. Hopefully BMGF can find them suitable homes...
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/22/the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundations-sponsorship-of-the-guardian/
From the article:
“This story came from a Guardian sub-section called ‘Global Development‘.
But then I came across this 2010 Guardian story about how the Guardian has started up this new ‘Global Development’ site in partnership with… the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So much information on Gates...almost “paralysed” with possibilities. Ideas?
10) Recent US and UK stories where people clearly dying of other things - cancer, suicide, motorcycle accidents etc are ascribed to COVID. Officially, George Floyd’s death should have been ascribed to COVID, since I believe he tested positive during autopsy. Might have led to a very different world...
https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-death-autopsy-coronavirus-protests-a9548386.html
HighImpactFix video about case number “massage” and motorcycle anomalies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olz03OPeijM&feature=youtu.be
11) Recent US and UK stories of the deceitful practices by which:
i) the case numbers are conflated with all death numbers on certain days
ii) Dying "of" vs "with" COVID
iii) anyone who dies after testing positive is a COVID death
iv) cases being reported and subliminally conflated with deaths by the media, when death numbers fell too low to keep the public sufficiently terrified to accept coming measures
v) case numbers merely made up or inflated by a factor of ten, in Florida’s case last week.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/
Too many to include all here, but the recent Florida 'mistake' is here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-labs-found-significantly-inflating-positive-covid-testing-rate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7g8BgKAXE
If this is a genuine event, what possible reason would there be to commit fraud in so many ways to keep it looking genuine, besides the need to control demolish the world economy and vaccine-shill?
12) Event 201. Drill gone live. Nuff said.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html
CORBETT REPORT:
https://www.corbettreport.com/mml2020/
Amazing Polly:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7O5RylrMUV8F/
13) The fact that there have been no surprises at all since the crisis began. Every next step had been telegraphed in the media well in advance. Everything began with the notion that a vaccine would be the only solution and the narrative has remained remarkably consistent to Event201.
14) Even with all of these statistical somersaults, the death numbers this year are not far from what they’ve been in previous years. Pneumonia and flu deaths are suspiciously down.


2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Compared with:

2019- Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
2019 Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124915/flu-deaths-number-us/
MUCH, MUCH MORE DATA NEEDED HERE....
15) That in the space of four months, they have managed to capitalise on this crisis and remove so many rights from us permanently. An opportunity for which they’ve been waiting for years, COVID sped up the process and kept us otherwise preoccupied.
Here is my list of achieved or achievable hidden agenda:
In no particular order:
  1. Controlled demolition of the stock market/ global economy. Global reset etc
  2. Transhumanist/ AI rollout (post-human, Gates patents for human batteries linked with cryptocurrency (60606). https://news.bitcoin.com/microsoft-cryptocurrency-system/
  3. Vaccine adulation and promotion (Gates etc promising vaccine = release from captivity - pharmaceutical companies in league with WHO to drum up mandatory sales)
  4. Expediting the climate change agenda, conflating it with the virus as a call for world government and global sustainability.
  5. Plus RFID/ ID2020 tracking through vaccines (mark of the beast, without which no transaction/ employment will be possible)
  6. Demonisation and eradication of cash (total financial dominion)
  7. Mass unemployment and Universal Credit system linked to Social Credit.
  8. Bank (and corporate) bailouts – this time round it looks legitimate and necessary, no public outcry.
  9. Using and conditioning us to the concept of quarantining as a future method of control should there be any hint of unrest.
  10. Cultification of the NHS to the point of a unifying religion (clapping and donations and lionisation of medical staff during what must be the quietest time in their history)
  11. Legitimation of multiculturalism and immigration (race-baiting through NHS and volunteers, #youclapforusnow
  12. A shot in the arm for the MSM and government as a whole: no longer irrelevant and dying, people watching 24-7 since pandemic. Taking attention away from alternative media.
  13. Privatisation of NHS/ public services – corporations will step in to ‘save’ us (public gratitude replacing scepticism)
  14. Makes government look noble and heroic (wartime/ WW2 mentality fostered)
  15. COVID19 as cover story for 5G radiation/ environmental pollution/ vaccine damage etc
  16. Mass Surveillance – using 5G ‘for our safety’ to track and trace
  17. Opportunity to pass draconian laws against human rights (assembly, sectioning, travel, speech)
  18. Social alienation/ conformity as preference/ patriotic duty
  19. Prevention of assembly in order to protest draconian laws
  20. Depopulation in stages (elderly first, then with vaccines and suicides/ bankruptcy etc due to system collapse)
  21. Censorship of social media and social discourse in general
  22. Installation of 5G during lockdown to avoid scrutiny
  23. Effecting the transition of the workplace, shopping district and school to the home, ending community and all nourishing human interactions.
  24. The ‘new normal’ - social revolution and culture creation through social distancing/ queuing for shops/reinvention of the word essential/ mask wearing etc
  25. Destruction of small and medium sized businesses and the high street in general
  26. Fauci’s early dismissive comments about virus, herd immunity and futility of masks, before the script was revised.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-fauci-in-march-masks-make-you-feel-a-little-bit-better-but-unnecessary-for-general-population-warns-of-unintended-consequences
”You don’t need a mask.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHsEmlIoE4
To the NEJM, he described COVID in March as a flu, with similar numbers predicted to suffer.
“WOW! Dr. Fauci in New England Journal of Medicine Concedes the Coronavirus Mortality Rate May Be Much Closer to a Very Bad Flu”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/wow-dr-fauci-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine-concedes-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-may-be-much-closer-to-a-very-bad-flu/
Why the u-turn? Surely we define our experts by their consistency.
F William Engdahl article:
https://fort-russ.com/amp/2020/04/shedding-light-on-the-dishonorable-record-of-dr-fauci-a-real-mengele/
Christine Grady (Fauci’s wife) and her sinister connections to NIH and Gates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYen0g4TRU
17) Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Nadine Dorries - The statistical chances (14%) of three members of the UK Cabinet (made up of 22 people), including the prime minister, actually catching it and one almost dying apparently, right before reversing his decision to let it pass.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-list-of-senior-government-figures-affected-by-coronavirus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51827356
A very intentionally dramatic start to our lockdown, announced by Johnson from his "death-bed", ensuring all were in the appropriate state of panic:
"Boris Johnson: Hospital doctors were ready to announce my death"
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-hospital-doctors-were-ready-to-announce-my-death/
18) Meanwhile, racism knocks the virus off the front pages and our minds for a few weeks, but we’re meant to go right back to taking it seriously when requested.
https://summit.news/2020/06/05/1200-public-health-experts-sign-letter-advocating-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-is-a-bigger-threat-than-covid-19/
19) The many proven fake media stories...of long lines for testing and hospital footage from NY, mannequins in beds etc
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cbs-news-accused-by-project-veritas-of-faking-footage-in-michigan-coronavirus-testing-report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUBTtUTOII
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-video-operating-dummy-coron/partly-false-claim-video-shows-doctors-operating-on-a-dummy-to-exaggerate-extent-of-coronavirus-crisis-idUSKBN21P2Q8
20) International care home scandals - Deliberately mandating coronavirus carriers into crowded care homes to bump up death toll and concomitant hysteria, kill off elderly...murder?
"It is remarkable how many deaths during this pandemic have occurred in care homes. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 50,000 care home deaths were registered in the 11 weeks up to 22 May in England and Wales — 25,000 more than you would expect at this time of the year. Two out of five care homes in England have had a coronavirus outbreak; in the north-east, it’s half.
Not all these deaths, however, have been attributed to Covid-19. Even when death certificates do mention it, it is not always clear that it is the disease that was the ultimate cause of death..."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dying-of-neglect-the-other-covid-care-home-scandal
"The daughter of a 91-year-old gran who died of Covid-19 she contracted in a care home is demanding to know why her mum was “sacrificed” by ministers.
Retired teacher Anne Duncan died in Edinburgh’s Western General Hospital two days after her family managed to force a move out of the care home in the city where they feared she would die alone.
Her daughter Linda hit out at what she called a “scandalous” policy to release coronavirus patients into care homes and called for her mum’s death to be investigated as part of a wider review."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/scots-gran-who-died-covid-22172074
Also, more than 40% of US ‘virus‘ deaths occur in nursing homes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/504885-over-40-percent-of-us-covid-19-deaths-are-linked-to-nursing-homes-nyt
21) (thanks to Reddit’s lawofconfusion!) Ventilators - All of the sudden, a clamour for them generated panic demand and buying. Cuomo desperate, while he sat in front of a warehouse wall full of them. Hegelian dialectics at play. Trump apparently withholding, Trump giving them out like Oprah, then the evidence that they were killing most people on them.
“A giant study that examined outcomes for more than 2,600 patients found an extraordinarily high 88% death rate among Covid-19 patients in the New York City area who had to be placed on mechanical devices to help them breathe.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study
22) Testing inconsistencies:
Half of CDC Coronavirus Test Kits Are Inaccurate, Study Finds.
”The study's lead author, Sin Hang Lee, MD, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, found that the testing kits gave a 30 percent false-positive rate and a 20 percent false-negative rate.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/half-of-cdc-coronavirus-test-kits-are-inaccurate-study-finds/ar-BB16S6M6
“According to the creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis himself, it cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
https://www.weblyf.com/2020/05/coronavirus-the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts/
Tanzania scandal and the goat/ papaya ‘positive‘ testing (they had to put in the religious dig as a debunking attempt here, didn’t they?):
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-tanzania-testing-kits-questioned-after-goat-and-papaya-test-positive-11982864
Also, this about CT testing irregularities:
https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/covid-19/connecticut-says-it-found-testing-flaw-90-false-positives/article_91811362-a9b3-53ab-9485-00067ce9e0d5.html
Funny how all the “mistakes” err on the side of positive...

submitted by secretymology to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...

Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago.

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
submitted by CuriousTitmouse to btc [link] [comments]

Raven Coin - An Honest Conversation With The Lead Developer Blockchain Interviews with Justin Vendetta, Lead Developer of Verge Meet Andrei Terentiev - Lead Developer of Bitcoin.com The CoinSpice Show #3 - Amaury Séchet, Bitcoin Cash Network Attacks, Infrastructure Funding Interview with Amaury Séchet, lead developer of Bitcoin ABC  Satoshi's Vision Conference

Bitcoin Cash and Blockchain technology enable financial sovereignty in a way which is unique in history. Bitcoin Cash is the soundest money the world has ever known. As a developer you can make it available to all people, whatever their age, gender, nationality or financial status. Updated news about bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies Ripple Lead Developer Advises on Remote Work Amid Coronavirus Pandemic Cryptographer and leading C++ software engineer at Ripple Nik Bougalis offers advice on remote work management to firms amid the coronavirus pandemic. Lead developer quits bitcoin saying it "has failed" January 17, 2016 — 3.48pm. Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size. Bitcoin slid by 10 per cent on Friday after one of its lead TL;DR: Amaury Séchet, lead developer for Bitcoin Cash (BCH) protocol implementation Bitcoin ABC, announced his team is "moving forward with the Grasberg DAA." It's an answer to increasing levels of discussion and debate regarding the DAA (difficulty adjustment algorithm) in recent weeks, notably led 700,000 Expedia Hotels Can Now Be Paid With Cryptocurrencies via TravalaMore than 700,000 Expedia Group hotels and accommodations are now available via crypto-friendly travel booking platform Travala. Bookings can be paid with more than 30 cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. Despite covid-19, Travala saw a 170%

[index] [26568] [4865] [6775] [10730] [20954] [27898] [25613] [17659] [22028] [1947]

Raven Coin - An Honest Conversation With The Lead Developer

Ashton Addison speaks with Justin, the Lead Developer of Verge Currency. Verge currency is one of the largest cryptocurrency communities in the space. Verge is an open source decentralized ... Seema Phalke Lead Developer Explains Why IBM Built World Wire On Stellar XLM Blockchain News Crypto. ... Plus VISA in Crypto! [Bitcoin News] - Duration: 10:01. Altcoin Daily 27,353 views. 10:01. News & Politics; Show more Show less. Comments are turned off Autoplay When autoplay is enabled, ... Lead Developer of Bitcoin Cash - Duration: 35:21. TheAnarchast 22,893 views. Meet Andrei Terentiev - Lead Developer of Bitcoin.com as part of the Meet The Management series. Remember to subscribe to our Youtube channel and hit the bel... Is the market setting up for a crash, we take a quick look. We look at how Bitcoin was trending in 2017 overall, and we discover lead Monero dev makes his case for the coin to Coinbase.

Flag Counter