8 Bitcoin Virtual Bank Accounts - SatoshiFire

[poll] Satoshi Bitcoin client plugin support

What happens to Satoshi Bitcoin client IF core developers include plugin system feature? Do you think it is a good idea? (electrum already support plugins)
[x] Yes, we will have a revolution
[ ] No, we will have security flaws
p.s. I already voted ;)
submitted by bitcoinforum to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone (the lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited) voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

crebe “Level Dividend Mode”:Let Some People Get Rich First

crebe, a nascent blockchain startup based in Singapore, envisions its newly-launched cryptocurrency trading platform becoming the world’s NO.1 in the foreseeable future.

Management Philosophy: “Credit” and “Benefit”
According COO Jilly, the startup’s name is the combination of words “credit” and “benefit”, which reflects the management philosophy of building a credit-based cryptocurrency exchange platform and giving substantial benefits to users.
On 21th December, crebe 1.0 cryptocurrency exchange platform have made its online debut. More impressively, it sent out 90% of crebe tokens(CT) as reward for new users.
Level Dividend Mode
As a newcomer to digit asset exchanges, crebe gives a pleasant surprise to investors: “level dividend” mode , a quantitative method of calculating the dividends paid to users based on the level of their accounts.
By holding a CT, you will receive a daily bonus/dividend. The more CT you hold, the more bonus you get. 80% of the daily platform transaction fees are used to pay dividends to users.
The amount of dividends you receive are also related to your account level. The higher your account level, the more rewards you receive and the greater value your account is worth.
Users can upgrade their level by logging in, trading, inviting friends to trade, etc.
The instructions of “level acceleration”are as follows:
• The user logs in to crebe in a natural day and that counts as 1 active day;
• Users get 1 active day per transaction of equivalent value of 100CT;
• Users get 1 active day if friends he invited trade equivalent of 500CT.
The “level dividend” mode is popular among users at home and abroad, and the number of users in Japan, Korea and Europe has increased dramatically.
On the first trading day, online transaction volume in the crypto exchange platform reached more than 200 million yuan, while the price of its platform token CT was up a whopping 100%, and the dividend yield reached more than 20% .
Over the past ten days since its debut, crebe has attracted more than 5,000 daily active users, with daily trading volume exceeding 500 million.
Strategic Goals
According to Alex, crebe’s 1.0 aims at building up an account appreciation system, by virtue of which the startup can amass a large base of active users.
Moving into 2019, the company’s goal is to launch 2.0 version — social finance system, which is expected to be unveiled in May.
By the end of 2020,crebe is expected to achieve the third-step strategic goal of establishing a credit contract public chain,which is set to restructure the value system of credit scenarios and implement diversified application scenarios such as banking, payment, insurance, securities, real estate, offline retail, travel, etc.
Strong Technology Team
A promising blockchain startup must have a strong technology team. The crypto exchange is the brainchild of crebe team after 8 months of hard works.
As a global innovative digital asset trading platform, crebe R&D team members are those high-end technology talents from around the world, like the platform of Huobi Exchange, Baidu, Alipay, Tencent, Chicago Board Options Exchange, IB Securities and so on.
In fact, as early as 2014, the technical team set out in the blockchain area. Alex , founder and CEO of the startup, has been engaged in blockchain research and development since 2013. More impressively , he had previously participated in the optimization of the core module of Satoshi Bitcoin Client (now Bitcoin Core).
crebe’s CSO Swap, who is in charge of the platform’s security architecture, is the founder Hackerabc and has a great contribution and influence in the security field.
With the solid technology team, crebe cryptocurrency exchange platform boasts the most-advantaged matchmaking trading technology and most innovative dividend paying model.
Under the leadership of its core tech team, crebe is expected to occupy a special position in the market.
submitted by crebe-official to u/crebe-official [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to sound8bits [link] [comments]

“ Payment processors who are Non-Custodial Financial Service Providers on Bitcoin Cash never have control of even a single Satoshi of their client's money (couldn't "hold on to it" if they wanted to) AND still make revenue on every purchase 🙂”

“ Payment processors who are Non-Custodial Financial Service Providers on Bitcoin Cash never have control of even a single Satoshi of their client's money (couldn't submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Core (formerly Satoshi Client) was designed by the inventor of Bitcoin in 2009. Today, 10 years later there are over 40 million wallets as blockchain download now exceeds 250 gigabytes

Bitcoin Core (formerly Satoshi Client) was designed by the inventor of Bitcoin in 2009. Today, 10 years later there are over 40 million wallets as blockchain download now exceeds 250 gigabytes submitted by kupwjtdo to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell, the man who hates Bitcoin and said he proved it was impossible, now supports Craig and the Satoshi Vision client.

Greg Maxwell, the man who hates Bitcoin and said he proved it was impossible, now supports Craig and the Satoshi Vision client. submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

This is the first client Satoshi ever released. If this client does not sync the BTC blockchain WITHOUT MODIFICATION, then by BTC's own arguments, BTC is itself an altcoin, and "Real Bitcoin" ceased to exist in 2010. Try it! Share your findings!

submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

TIL in 2011 a user running a modified mining client intentionally underpaid himself 1 satoshi, which is the only time bitcoin have ever truly been destroyed.

In block 124724 you'll find txid 5d80a29b which has a payout of 49.99999999 BTC at a time when the block reward was 50 BTC. A transaction fee of 0.01 BTC was also forfeited. This bitcoin no longer exists anywhere in the network, as opposed to "burned" coins which technically still exist in a wallet which no one can ever access (ex: 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE).
On bitcointalk user midnightmagic explains a deeper meaning behind this:
I did it as a tribute to our missing Satoshi: we are missing Satoshi, and now the blockchain is missing 1 Satoshi too, for all time.
EDIT: Users have pointed out in the comments that this isn't actually the only time coins have been destroyed, there are actually several different ways coins have been destroyed in the past. sumBTC also points out that the satoshi wasn't destroyed-- it was never created in the first place.
Another interesting way to destroy coins is by creating a duplicate transaction. This is again done with a modified client. For example see block 91722 and block 91880. They both contain txid e3bf3d07. The newer transaction essentially overwrites the old transaction, destroying the previous one and the associated coins. This issue was briefly discussed on Github #612 and determined to not be a big deal. In 2012 they realized that duplicated transactions could be used as part of an attack on the network so this was fixed and is no longer possible.
Provably burning coins was actually added as a feature in 2014 via OP_RETURN. Transactions marked with this opcode MAY be pruned from a client's unspent transaction database. Whether or not these coins still exist is a matter of opinion.
Finally, at least 1,000 blocks forfeited transactions fees due to a software bug. Forfeited transaction fees are lost forever and are unaccounted for in any wallet.
Further reading: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30862/how-much-bitcoin-is-lost-on-average/30864#30864 https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38994/will-there-be-21-million-bitcoins-eventually/38998#38998
submitted by NewLlama to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Q&A with the Bitcoin SV Development Team. We asked all of your submitted questions to Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Satoshi's Vision client ahead of the upcoming November fork.

Q&A with the Bitcoin SV Development Team. We asked all of your submitted questions to Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Satoshi's Vision client ahead of the upcoming November fork. submitted by The_BCH_Boys to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Core (formerly Satoshi Client) was designed by the inventor of Bitcoin in 2009. Today, 10 years later there are over 40 million wallets as blockchain download now exceeds 250 gigabytes

submitted by scgco to GGCrypto [link] [comments]

PSA: As the Fork Date Approaches, This is Just a Reminder That There Is A Bitcoin Client That Even More Closely Embodies the Vision of Satoshi than Bitcoin SV

PSA: As the Fork Date Approaches, This is Just a Reminder That There Is A Bitcoin Client That Even More Closely Embodies the Vision of Satoshi than Bitcoin SV submitted by Zectro to btc [link] [comments]

09-02 11:03 - 'Satoshi Nakaboto: ‘Max Keiser sets $28,000 Bitcoin price target’' (thenextweb.com) by /u/seo-client removed from /r/Bitcoin within 137-147min

Satoshi Nakaboto: ‘Max Keiser sets $28,000 Bitcoin price target’
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: seo-client
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

In my view until stakeholders start voting with their satoshis about future upgrades its only a matter of time before you get infiltrated and forked again. Satoshi voting code is ready in the Bitcoin Unlimited client.

In my view until stakeholders start voting with their satoshis about future upgrades its only a matter of time before you get infiltrated and forked again. Satoshi voting code is ready in the Bitcoin Unlimited client. submitted by redmarlen to btc [link] [comments]

03-09 20:23 - 'Another reason why whitepaper pursim is a ridiculous cult. [Here] in 2010 Satoshi did a stealth edit to calculate cumulative POW. Longest chain as a metric will cause huge problems with SPV as SPV clients would have no problem...' by /u/jakesonwu removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-4min

'''
Another reason why whitepaper pursim is a ridiculous cult. [Here]1 in 2010 Satoshi did a stealth edit to calculate cumulative POW. Longest chain as a metric will cause huge problems with SPV as SPV clients would have no problem accepting longest invalid chain.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: jakesonwu
1: gith*b.*o**bitc*in*b*t*oin/commit/40c*0369*1*3*3f8d7385*50e20342e998c994*1*di**-*23***d6*a1a4522**ee*71*96*47b31*4*0
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

You want the original Bitcoin client 0.1.0 written by Satoshi following his vision? You got it.

submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin ABC connects to a lot of Satoshi Clients?

I've started banning Satoshi peers from my list of peers. Is that the righ thing to do? So about 30 connections, originally quite a lot of Satoshi clients which if I understand correctly means core. Satoshi:0.14.1 for example.
I have been giving these a 1 week ban, but whats the right thing to do ?
submitted by mintymark to BitcoinABC [link] [comments]

/r/BitcoinAll supports the SV (Satoshi's Vision) client. BitcoinCash is beholden to no one but the whitepaper. Give us the original Bitcoin and not your interpretation of it. If SV tries to change Bitcoin, they become our enemy. Until then they have our support!

Small minds focus on people.
Keep your eye on the bullseye.
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Fix problems when they are problems. Not before.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

/r/BitcoinAll supports the SV (Satoshi's Vision) client. BitcoinCash is beholden to no one but the whitepaper. Give us the original Bitcoin and not your interpretation of it. If SV tries to change Bitcoin, they become our enemy. Until then they have our support!

/BitcoinAll supports the SV (Satoshi's Vision) client. BitcoinCash is beholden to no one but the whitepaper. Give us the original Bitcoin and not your interpretation of it. If SV tries to change Bitcoin, they become our enemy. Until then they have our support! submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Q&A with the Bitcoin SV Development Team. We asked all of your submitted questions to Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Satoshi's Vision client ahead of the upcoming November fork.

Q&A with the Bitcoin SV Development Team. We asked all of your submitted questions to Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Satoshi's Vision client ahead of the upcoming November fork. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell, the man who hates Bitcoin and said he proved it was impossible, now supports Craig and the Satoshi Vision client.

Greg Maxwell, the man who hates Bitcoin and said he proved it was impossible, now supports Craig and the Satoshi Vision client. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell, the man who hates Bitcoin and said he proved it was impossible, now supports Craig and the Satoshi Vision client.

Greg Maxwell, the man who hates Bitcoin and said he proved it was impossible, now supports Craig and the Satoshi Vision client. submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

PSA: Bitcoin Has Been Hijacked Satoshi Mines Bot THE BITCOIN INVESTOR WEEKLY, MAY 25. Satoshi selling? Goldman Sachs BTC call, Institutionals buying Did Satoshi Just Move Craig Wright’s Bitcoins Free BitCoins - Bitcoin Mining HQ - YouTube

Bitcoin-Qt, also called "Satoshi client" is sometimes referred to as the reference client because it serves to define the Bitcoin protocol and acts as a standard for other implementations. As of version 0.9, Bitcoin-Qt has been renamed "Bitcoin Core" to more accurately describe its role in the network. Initially, Satoshi Nakamoto delegated the right to make decisions on changing the code of ... Fidor Bank is a German virtual bank founded by Matthias Kröner, Dr. Michael Maier, Steffen Seeger and Martin Kölsch in 2009. The bank maintains fiat and Bitcoin customers in the European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland, Dubai, Singapore and the US. Fidor’s Bitcoin bank account, available on Android and iOS, allows customers to save cryptocurrencies and convert into fiat money. Satoshi Client Block Exchange. From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. Contents. 1 Overview; 2 Inventory Messages; 3 Block Batching; 4 Batch Continue Mechanism; 5 Stall Recovery; 6 Long Orphan Chains; 7 Flood Limit Effects; 8 Performance; 9 Footnotes; Overview. This article describes how blocks are exchanged between nodes. See Protocol rules for more information on how blocks are ... Satoshi Nakamoto, der Entwickler von Bitcoin, fortgesetzte die Kommunikation in den Webforen mit Spezialisten, die an der Weiterentwicklung des Systems interessiert waren. Bald begann der Kontakt zwischen ihm und seinem Team zu schwächen und im Frühling 2011 gab Satoshi seinen Rücktritt bekannt und erklärte dies in den folgenden Worten: «Für wichtigere Angelegenheiten». Original Satoshi clients: Only the bitcoin releases 0.1.0 up to 0.1.5 which supported only Windows 2000 / Windows NT and Windows XP (perhaps Windows Vista). The next bitcoin release 0.2.0 from Dec 2009, nearly a year later, starts to support Linux and the community got more and more actively involved in the development. For history, one of the earliest available proof of a running bitcoin-0.1 ...

[index] [16276] [43861] [771] [25015] [17012] [28968] [21061] [23623] [34472] [14175]

PSA: Bitcoin Has Been Hijacked

On May 20, reports indicated that Satoshi Nakmato may have reactivated himself in order to move 50 Bitcoins ( BTC ) first mined back in February 2009. Upon further research, it was discovered that ... The original Bitcoin software by Satoshi Nakamoto was released under the MIT license. Most client software, derived or "from scratch", also use open source licensing. Bitcoin is one of the first ... Heute geht's um folgende Themen: BlockFi verwaltet über $53 Millionen in Crypto, McAfee hat mit Satoshi Nakamoto gesprochen & Abra mit Bitcoin in Aktien und ETF's investieren. 1.) * Is Satoshi selling BTC? * Grayscale bought 1/3 of BTC mined in 1Q20 * Lawsuits against BitMEX and EOS * Goldman Sachs hosts BTC client call * Could Iran, V... Satoshi Mines Bot. Satoshi Mines Bot. Skip navigation Sign in. Search. Loading... Close. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue. Remove all; Disconnect; The next video is ...

#