A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /r/Bitcoin

5 stars based on 51 reviews

The bitcoin scalability problem refers to the discussion blockstream bitcoin xt the limits on the amount of transactions the bitcoin network can process. It is related to the fact that records known as blocks in the bitcoin blockchain are limited in size and frequency. These jointly constrain the network's throughput.

The transaction processing capacity maximum is estimated between 3. Business Insider in characterized this debate as an "ideological battle over bitcoin's future. The block size limit has created a bottleneck in bitcoin, resulting in increasing transaction blockstream bitcoin xt and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block.

Increasing the network's transaction processing limit requires making changes to the technical workings of bitcoin, in a process known as a fork.

Forks can be grouped into two types:. A hard fork is a rule change such that the software validating according to the old rules will see the blocks produced according to the new rules as invalid. In case of a hard fork, all nodes meant to work in accordance with the new rules need to upgrade their software. If one group of nodes continues to use the old software while the other nodes use the new software, a split can occur.

For example, Ethereum has hard-forked to "make whole" the investors in The Blockstream bitcoin xtwhich had been hacked by exploiting a vulnerability in blockstream bitcoin xt code. In the Nxt community was asked to consider a hard fork that blockstream bitcoin xt have led to a rollback of the blockchain records to mitigate the effects of a theft of 50 million NXT from a major cryptocurrency exchange. The hard fork proposal was rejected, and some of the funds were recovered after negotiations and ransom payment.

Alternatively, to prevent a permanent split, a majority of nodes using the new software may return to the old rules, as was the case of bitcoin split on 12 March Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork of bitcoin blockstream bitcoin xt the maximum block size.

Bitcoin XTBitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited all supported an increase to the maximum block size through a hard fork. In contrast to a hard fork, a soft fork is a change of rules that creates blocks recognized as valid by the old software, i.

A user activated soft fork UASF is a contentious concept of blockstream bitcoin xt a soft fork rule change without the majority support of miners. Segregated Witness is an example of a soft fork.

Technical optimizations may decrease the amount of computing resources required to receive, process and record bitcoin transactions, allowing increased throughput without placing extra demand on the bitcoin network. These modifications can be to either the network, in which case a fork is required, or to individual node software such as Bitcoin Core. Protocols such as the Lightning Network and Tumblebit have been proposed which operate on top of the bitcoin network as a cache to allow payments to be effected that are blockstream bitcoin xt immediately put on the blockchain.

Transaction throughput is limited practically by a parameter known as the block size limit. Various increases to this limit, and proposals to remove it completely, have been proposed over bitcoin's history. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

For a broader coverage related to this topic, see Bitcoin. Part of this section is transcluded from Fork blockchain. User activated soft fork. Retrieved 18 January Retrieved December 10, The maximum throughput is the maximum rate at which the blockstream bitcoin xt can confirm transactions. This number is constrained by the maximum block size and the inter-block time.

Retrieved 2 July Retrieved 17 January Retrieved 1 July Retrieved 13 November Archived from the original on Retrieved 4 Jan Retrieved 13 Blockstream bitcoin xt Retrieved blockstream bitcoin xt January Retrieved 4 July This is What to Expect". Retrieved 24 August Retrieved 20 August Retrieved 22 June Retrieved 29 June Retrieved 6 October Retrieved 8 November The Bitcoin Unlimited Debate".

History Economics Legal status. List of bitcoin companies List of bitcoin organizations List of people in blockchain technology. Cryptography portal Computing portal Free software portal Internet portal Numismatics portal.

Retrieved from " https: Use dmy dates from December All blockstream bitcoin xt lacking reliable references Articles lacking reliable references from March Views Read Edit View history. This page was last edited on 28 Aprilat By using this site, you blockstream bitcoin xt to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Wallet bitcoin adalah nyu

  • Bitcoin handels software bot deutscher forex broker

    Bitcoin wallet watch only you online

  • 32 bit to 64 bit converter windows 7 download

    Otc demand for bitcoin and altcoins is rising

Application specific integrated circuit bitcoin wallet

Dogecoin 2016 predictions astrology

  • How to cash bitcoins in pakistanwhere to buy litecoins

    Justcoin litecoin difficulty

  • Bitcoin wallets online india

    Litecoin online wallet

  • How to get a custom bitcoin address

    Robot ceramic salt and pepper mill

Nova x segnala bitcoinaggiornamento del protocollo iota

28 comments Next bitcoin currency trade

Profit trailer bittrex trading botupdate 5the real deal cryptocurrency trading bot

VeritasSapere on August 23, , OgNasty on August 23, , Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted. First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin. To think that we should never hard fork is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol.

Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power.

The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP, these right now are our only two choices.

You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP? You seem to think you need to take some dire action right now to save Bitcoin. I would suggest that your attitude is exactly the type of panic that those two teams are trying to play on. I mean, supporting XT for solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person.

If you have some financial involvement with BlockStream or XT, I can see why you'd push those as the only options. If you aren't involved with either of those projects, then you need to open your eyes and think for yourself. BlockStream and XT are both bad options.

Don't support either one. You are even telling some of these pro Core trolls to chill and not be so malicious which is admirable. The shill candidates have been subverting anti XT arguments in a highly developed fashion. I checked back a little just now to your exchanges with Krona Rev, you've been arguing straight, and having a productive debate. You seem as reasonable as you claim on that basis. But it will be after the fork.

Especially if the address format and the magic bytes have to change, in the event that Bitcoin and XT are running in parallel after January 11th. I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. This could so easily have been the other way around. Andresen voluntarily relinquished lead dev role to Wladimir van der Laan to join the Bitcoin Foundation. If he had still been in charge, he was one of a few with commit access to the git repository.

If, given those circumstances, everything else had transpired the same way, then Gavin could at this point in time have already commited BIP to the Bitcoin main branch, causing far more serious divisions in the dev team than we see today. I would be in that camp, given those precise circumstances. The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent.

My assessment is that this threat is malignant. Would you agree that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented.

I mean, supporting XT which is a disgrace to what Bitcoin stands for, under the guise of solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person. BlockStream and XT are both shitty options with extreme benefits for their creators at the cost of the community.

The only way to do this is to not support Bitcoin at all in terms of running a full node or mining. Since not using XT or a patched version of Core is the same thing as a vote for Core. I would like to point out that there is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional.

Therefore the discussion should be about BIP, since those other features should be irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus. Why is it a disgrace for what Bitcoin stands for? I suppose it is also true that I believe we should take action now to save Bitcoin, since I do not want the network to become overloaded in case we do have a spike in adoption possibly after some global event.