P2P Network — Bitcoin

Bitcoin Legacy-SegWit (aka Bitcoin Core, or Bitcoin BTC)

For news and discussion about Bitcoin LS (Legacy and SegWit, "Core"), which utilizes the Lightning Network to enable instant borderless micro transactions at low cost.
[link]

Bitmessage

Bitmessage is a P2P communications protocol used to send encrypted messages to another person or to many subscribers. It is decentralized and trustless, meaning that you need-not inherently trust any entities like root certificate authorities. It also aims to hide "non-content" data, like the sender and receiver of messages, from eavesdroppers. If Bitmessage is completely new to you, you may wish to start by reading the [whitepaper](http://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf).
[link]

Drop Zone - A Decentralized Marketplace Built on Bitcoin

An anonymous decentralized local marketplace built on Bitcoin.
[link]

Bitcoin Reference Client Developers should not be mostly from one company

This seems to be the real problem. How do we fix that? Most of the core developers get a paycheck from Blockstream.
As long as that condition exists in the future, we'll keep having these struggles.
submitted by tinytimsturtle to btc [link] [comments]

What about a new bitcoin reference client?

I'll keep this short. Development values:
1) Increase the price of bitcoin.
2) Scaling without centralization - keep a reasonable limit on block size - use BIP101 (because, see 1)
3) Preserve privacy, without allowing mainstream to marginalize bitcoin (again, see 1)
4) No private money funding reference client development (yes, again, see 1)
5) Fund through community donations, non profits, or, as much as I complained about it, research funding, like MIT (as long as it is not tied to industry or private money, see 1)
6) Follow the same governance models followed by Linux (because it worked there, and see 1)
Right now, this is bitcoin core - RFB + BIP101. Then we take it from there. I think we need Gavin on this, and a few others that balance out any concerns, and we need to make the environment tolerable too, as much as this is possible.
submitted by MrMadden to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Reference Client Refactoring

Is any team working on refactoring the Bitcoin reference client to decouple the client from the feature sets it enforces?
Its much more logical for the reference client to provide core functionality which can be altered by a set of plugins. Ideally, BU and SegWit would both be plugins on top of the reference client, and anyone can choose what features to run. Without this refactoring, we can never separate trust in the development teams from support of specific features.
The dev team for whatever the most popular client implementation is at any given time will always get pushback on new features they develop, and features developed by other teams will always have an uphill battle.
submitted by PretzelPirate to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Reference Client Refactoring /r/btc

Bitcoin Reference Client Refactoring /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client'

Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client' submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

[NASDAQ] Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client'

[NASDAQ] Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client' submitted by BitcoinPorn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[NASDAQ] Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client'

[NASDAQ] Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client' submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client'

Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client' submitted by tylev to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What about a new bitcoin reference client? /r/btc

What about a new bitcoin reference client? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client'

Who Funds Bitcoin Core Development? How the Industry Supports Bitcoin's 'Reference Client' submitted by BTCNews to BTCNews [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Reference Client Developers should not be mostly from one company /r/btc

Bitcoin Reference Client Developers should not be mostly from one company /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Permissionlessness, Bitcoin Core, consensus, and where do reference clients come from anyway?

Bitcoin, by design, is a permissionless network.
We hear the word "permissionless" used frequently, but what does it mean, and why is it really important?
On one level, permissionless means that nobody can censor a Bitcoin transaction. Nobody needs "permission" to place a transaction on the network and have it confirmed. That means anyone, anywhere, can always transact Bitcoin, and it is extremely difficult to prevent them from doing so. This is one of the key features of Bitcoin that has caused investors and entrepreneurs to bet on it.
But that isn't the only way in which Bitcoin is permissionless.
By design, anyone in the world can write a Bitcoin client that expresses any consensus rules they want, and if they are successful in convincing a sufficient majority of users and miners that their rules are superior, the new rules become the new consensus rules of Bitcoin.
That's how Bitcoin works, by design. This is also what "permissionlessness" means. Nobody has to ask permission to change the consensus rules - by design, the system enforces the consensus rules shared by the majority of stakeholders.
Why do we let just anyone run whatever client with whatever rules they want? Why isn't the network "locked down" so that only the "reference" and "approved" clients that adhere to the protocol can access it?
Among other reasons, the network is designed to be open to all clients in order to protect the first form of permissionlessness - the inability for anyone to censor transactions. Since no one entity can control the code, it becomes much less likely (bordering on impossible) that the network can ever become monopolized or gate-kept by "owning" the code. If anyone tries to insert "censorship" code into Bitcoin, anyone else can just take it out, and nobody can be compelled to run the "censoring" code.
It is this aspect of permissionlessness - that the protocol is directly defined by a majority of stakeholders, not by power brokers, special interest groups, or even technocrats - this right here is the precise reason I and so many others are invested in this technology.
I also did not invest in a cult of personality, outward appearances sometimes to the contrary.
I did not become a Bitcoin enthusiast/investor because I thought Greg and Jeff and Peter and Mike and Gavin were the smartest devs who had ever lived.
I did not invest in them.
I did not bet that this handful of guys was worth betting on... against Visa, Goldman, Chase, the gold market, and the entire free market of international fiat and cryptographic currencies.
Not. At. All.
That would have been a dumb bet, no offense to the devs. It's stupid to think any particular group of ten guys is going to consistently out-think the whole world. That would be a Bad Coin.
No, if the current devs - on "Core" or "XT" - were the reason I was supposed to "invest" in Bitcoin, I would have run away as fast as I could - again, no offense to the devs. I just don't think any ten-or-so individuals can out-think the rest of the world.
Fortunately, that's not how Bitcoin works.
The reason I and so many others believe in Bitcoin can be summed up in that one word: permissionlessness.
Permissionlessness means that I can write a change to the consensus rules today, post a blog that explains my changes, and if my idea is super-awesome and a majority of the Bitcoin world agrees with me and starts running my code, then I have just written the latest version of Bitcoin.
(I can, should, and would present my idea first in the form of a BIP and hope that one of the devs on a current project picks up my BIP and makes it reality - why would anyone write a client when they could instead just pitch an idea? But that misses the bigger point: I do not have to ask anyone's permission to allow my code out into the wild - I always have the option of doing it myself and letting the free market decide if my ideas are worth betting on.)
Because that's how it works. By design. That's what "permissionless" means. That's why "they" can never take Bitcoin from "us." At least, not without a hell of a fight.
As a result of "permissionlessness" it means that structurally, Bitcoin is not defined from the "top down" by a team of "core developers" who define a "reference client" that others must follow - in fact, Bitcoin's "permissionlessness" goes directly against this execution model.
Bitcoin is defined through economic consensus in an open marketplace of ideas expressed in code, and those who use Bitcoin decide its ultimate form by expressing whatever consensus rules they wish to express.
This has specific implications for certain features of Bitcoin:
MANY CLIENTS: If the blockchain could be acted on by only one client implementation, then it wouldn't be permissionless. Anyone must be able to write their own client that transacts with the blockchain (in fairness I don't think anyone disputes this, and I've heard a lot of crazy disputes so far).
MANY RULES: If the blockchain could be acted on only by clients which agree with some set of rules governed by a sub-group of stakeholders, then that isn't permissionless. Anyone must be able to express whatever consensus rules they prefer, without asking permission to do so, and the network must be robust with respect to this, by silencing unpopular consensus rules and expressing those of the majority of stakeholders.
So we see that permissionlessness requires that anyone may write their own client, expressing whatever consensus rules they prefer, and should the majority of Bitcoin stakeholders adopt those rules, then those rules become the consensus rules that govern Bitcoin.
Which raises a question: what does it mean to be a "reference client" and why do we call Bitcoin Core a "reference client?" (This Wikipedia entry offers some insight if you're not really familiar with how the term is used).
In the initial design and launch of a new piece of software like Bitcoin, it makes sense that one person or a small number of people, perforce, will design the thing and control the implementation - this is "top-down". So for the launch of a protocol like Bitcoin, a reference implementation makes sense, because it fits the "top-down" pattern of the way the thing is being built.
But Bitcoin isn't top-down any longer. It's "middle-out" - we are all "peers" of various weight on this network, and we all in some way contribute to the specification of Bitcoin through our choices. Those who control the currently-used clients obviously have a much greater say in the community than "ordinary folk" like myself, as the current clients (and their teams) enjoy tremendous network effects that make their voices heard quite clearly. But new clients can, and do emerge, and gain traction, and these clients have every right to transact on the blockchain.
Each of these clients is free - welcome, in fact - to express whatever rules it wishes to express, and attempt to champion changes to the rules on whatever basis, and seek support. It this - that Bitcoin would be defined by an open marketplace of competing ideas - that myself and others invested in, when we bought Bitcoin and invested in VCs.
So this raises all kinds of questions with respect to a "reference implentation." In a "middle-out" implementation, who gets to define this "reference standard?" What makes it a "reference" in the first place? What happens if the majority doesn't choose the "reference" - in fact, is that an oxymoron in the context of Bitcoin? If two different implementations of the client agree 100% on the rule set, what makes one the "reference" and the other "just another client?" If several different new clients all agree on a new rule set, and together cause a fork, which one of them gets to claim to become the new "reference" client?
My take-away is that each client can only be the "reference client" of its rule-set. So, this means that "Bitcoin Core" is the reference client for a set of rules we can call the "Bitcoin Core Rule Set", and Bitcoin XT is the reference client for a set of rules we can call the "Bitcoin XT Rule Set" - but neither really should be called the "reference client for Bitcoin" because such a thing is oxymoronic in the context of a "permissionless" network which is designed and intended to evade control.
Instead, we should abstract the rules from the clients (since any number of clients can implement the same rules) and refer to them separately. The "Bitcoin Core Rule Set" is the current rule set being enforced on the blockchain, and its reference client is Bitcoin Core. Other Bitcoin rulesets can be proposed, and reference clients for them presented.
In conclusion, as an aside, my opinion is that language like "Bitcoin Core" and "Bitcoin Reference Client" can become damaging to the community:
  1. It confers an inflated level of status and authority to the group and its implementation. This makes disagreements inherently more "religious" than they ought to be - a disagreement with the "Bitcoin Core Reference Implementation Team" seems as if to be a disagreement with Bitcoin itself. This elevated status distorts debate (ie anything that disagrees with the "reference" isn't "Bitcoin") and possibly stunts the development of new solutions by giving this group veto power over new ideas. Furthermore, in my opinion, the status it confers on the team is damaging to the team itself and its members, as I believe that some of them have come to believe they in fact "speak for Bitcoin" at a level that they do not. This distorts their perceptions of their role vis-a-vis the larger community, with negative implications.
  2. It then projects all of this to the outside world, literally none of whom grasp "permissionlessness." To anyone that does not understand the underlying concepts supporting Bitcoin's permisssionlessness (and this is literally everyone "out there in the real world") all of these disagreements appear to be very very damaging to Bitcoin and serious threats to long-term survival. (In fact, many of those of us who understand "permissionlessness" are are thinking, this is what I paid for.)
Hopefully this disorganized rant helps galvanize some of you around some core Bitcoin concepts that seem to get lost among the minutia of the current surface debate.
Ultimately, I think everyone (or almost everyone) wants what they believe is best for Bitcoin.
Fortunately, by design, none of us have the power to force our views on Bitcoin's design. We users choose the design of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is permissionless.
Because permissionlessness allows anyone to innovate Bitcoin, even if it goes against established interests, well, that's why I think all of us, working in our own (possibly sometimes divergent) ways to do what we believe will be best for Bitcoin, will in fact ultimately produce what is best for Bitcoin.
submitted by tsontar to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Permissionlessness, consensus, Bitcoin Core, and where do reference clients come from anyway? [xpost from /r/bitcoin]

Bitcoin, by design, is a permissionless network.
We hear the word "permissionless" used frequently, but what does it mean, and why is it really important?
On one level, permissionless means that nobody can censor a Bitcoin transaction. Nobody needs "permission" to place a transaction on the network and have it confirmed. That means anyone, anywhere, can always transact Bitcoin, and it is extremely difficult to prevent them from doing so. This is one of the key features of Bitcoin that has caused investors and entrepreneurs to bet on it.
But that isn't the only way in which Bitcoin is permissionless.
By design, anyone in the world can write a Bitcoin client that expresses any consensus rules they want, and if they are successful in convincing a sufficient majority of users and miners that their rules are superior, the new rules become the new consensus rules of Bitcoin.
That's how Bitcoin works, by design. This is also what "permissionlessness" means. Nobody has to ask permission to change the consensus rules - by design, the system enforces the consensus rules shared by the majority of stakeholders.
Why do we let just anyone run whatever client with whatever rules they want? Why isn't the network "locked down" so that only the "reference" and "approved" clients that adhere to the protocol can access it?
Among other reasons, the network is designed to be open to all clients in order to protect the first form of permissionlessness - the inability for anyone to censor transactions. Since no one entity can control the code, it becomes much less likely (bordering on impossible) that the network can ever become monopolized or gate-kept by "owning" the code. If anyone tries to insert "censorship" code into Bitcoin, anyone else can just take it out, and nobody can be compelled to run the "censoring" code.
It is this aspect of permissionlessness - that the protocol is directly defined by a majority of stakeholders, not by power brokers, special interest groups, or even technocrats - this right here is the precise reason I and so many others are invested in this technology.
I also did not invest in a cult of personality, outward appearances sometimes to the contrary.
I did not become a Bitcoin enthusiast/investor because I thought Greg and Jeff and Peter and Mike and Gavin were the smartest devs who had ever lived.
I did not invest in them.
I did not bet that this handful of guys was worth betting on... against Visa, Goldman, Chase, the gold market, and the entire free market of international fiat and cryptographic currencies.
Not. At. All.
That would have been a dumb bet, no offense to the devs. It's stupid to think any particular group of ten guys is going to consistently out-think the whole world. That would be a Bad Coin.
No, if the current devs - on "Core" or "XT" - were the reason I was supposed to "invest" in Bitcoin, I would have run away as fast as I could - again, no offense to the devs. I just don't think any ten-or-so individuals can out-think the rest of the world.
Fortunately, that's not how Bitcoin works.
The reason I and so many others believe in Bitcoin can be summed up in that one word: permissionlessness.
Permissionlessness means that I can write a change to the consensus rules today, post a blog that explains my changes, and if my idea is super-awesome and a majority of the Bitcoin world agrees with me and starts running my code, then I have just written the latest version of Bitcoin.
(I can, should, and would present my idea first in the form of a BIP and hope that one of the devs on a current project picks up my BIP and makes it reality - why would anyone write a client when they could instead just pitch an idea? But that misses the bigger point: I do not have to ask anyone's permission to allow my code out into the wild - I always have the option of doing it myself and letting the free market decide if my ideas are worth betting on.)
Because that's how it works. By design. That's what "permissionless" means. That's why "they" can never take Bitcoin from "us." At least, not without a hell of a fight.
As a result of "permissionlessness" it means that structurally, Bitcoin is not defined from the "top down" by a team of "core developers" who define a "reference client" that others must follow - in fact, Bitcoin's "permissionlessness" goes directly against this execution model.
Bitcoin is defined through economic consensus in an open marketplace of ideas expressed in code, and those who use Bitcoin decide its ultimate form by expressing whatever consensus rules they wish to express.
This has specific implications for certain features of Bitcoin:
MANY CLIENTS: If the blockchain could be acted on by only one client implementation, then it wouldn't be permissionless. Anyone must be able to write their own client that transacts with the blockchain (in fairness I don't think anyone disputes this, and I've heard a lot of crazy disputes so far).
MANY RULES: If the blockchain could be acted on only by clients which agree with some set of rules governed by a sub-group of stakeholders, then that isn't permissionless. Anyone must be able to express whatever consensus rules they prefer, without asking permission to do so, and the network must be robust with respect to this, by silencing unpopular consensus rules and expressing those of the majority of stakeholders.
So we see that permissionlessness requires that anyone may write their own client, expressing whatever consensus rules they prefer, and should the majority of Bitcoin stakeholders adopt those rules, then those rules become the consensus rules that govern Bitcoin.
Which raises a question: what does it mean to be a "reference client" and why do we call Bitcoin Core a "reference client?" (This Wikipedia entry offers some insight if you're not really familiar with how the term is used).
In the initial design and launch of a new piece of software like Bitcoin, it makes sense that one person or a small number of people, perforce, will design the thing and control the implementation - this is "top-down". So for the launch of a protocol like Bitcoin, a reference implementation makes sense, because it fits the "top-down" pattern of the way the thing is being built.
But Bitcoin isn't top-down any longer. It's "middle-out" - we are all "peers" of various weight on this network, and we all in some way contribute to the specification of Bitcoin through our choices. Those who control the currently-used clients obviously have a much greater say in the community than "ordinary folk" like myself, as the current clients (and their teams) enjoy tremendous network effects that make their voices heard quite clearly. But new clients can, and do emerge, and gain traction, and these clients have every right to transact on the blockchain.
Each of these clients is free - welcome, in fact - to express whatever rules it wishes to express, and attempt to champion changes to the rules on whatever basis, and seek support. It this - that Bitcoin would be defined by an open marketplace of competing ideas - that myself and others invested in, when we bought Bitcoin and invested in VCs.
So this raises all kinds of questions with respect to a "reference implentation." In a "middle-out" implementation, who gets to define this "reference standard?" What makes it a "reference" in the first place? What happens if the majority doesn't choose the "reference" - in fact, is that an oxymoron in the context of Bitcoin? If two different implementations of the client agree 100% on the rule set, what makes one the "reference" and the other "just another client?" If several different new clients all agree on a new rule set, and together cause a fork, which one of them gets to claim to become the new "reference" client?
My take-away is that each client can only be the "reference client" of its rule-set. So, this means that "Bitcoin Core" is the reference client for a set of rules we can call the "Bitcoin Core Rule Set", and Bitcoin XT is the reference client for a set of rules we can call the "Bitcoin XT Rule Set" - but neither really should be called the "reference client for Bitcoin" because such a thing is oxymoronic in the context of a "permissionless" network which is designed and intended to evade control.
Instead, we should abstract the rules from the clients (since any number of clients can implement the same rules) and refer to them separately. The "Bitcoin Core Rule Set" is the current rule set being enforced on the blockchain, and its reference client is Bitcoin Core. Other Bitcoin rulesets can be proposed, and reference clients for them presented.
In conclusion, as an aside, my opinion is that language like "Bitcoin Core" and "Bitcoin Reference Client" can become damaging to the community:
  1. It confers an inflated level of status and authority to the group and its implementation. This makes disagreements inherently more "religious" than they ought to be - a disagreement with the "Bitcoin Core Reference Implementation Team" seems as if to be a disagreement with Bitcoin itself. This elevated status distorts debate (ie anything that disagrees with the "reference" isn't "Bitcoin") and possibly stunts the development of new solutions by giving this group veto power over new ideas. Furthermore, in my opinion, the status it confers on the team is damaging to the team itself and its members, as I believe that some of them have come to believe they in fact "speak for Bitcoin" at a level that they do not. This distorts their perceptions of their role vis-a-vis the larger community, with negative implications.
  2. It then projects all of this to the outside world, literally none of whom grasp "permissionlessness." To anyone that does not understand the underlying concepts supporting Bitcoin's permisssionlessness (and this is literally everyone "out there in the real world") all of these disagreements appear to be very very damaging to Bitcoin and serious threats to long-term survival. (In fact, many of those of us who understand "permissionlessness" are are thinking, this is what I paid for.)
Hopefully this disorganized rant helps galvanize some of you around some core Bitcoin concepts that seem to get lost among the minutia of the current surface debate.
Ultimately, I think everyone (or almost everyone) wants what they believe is best for Bitcoin.
Fortunately, by design, none of us have the power to force our views on Bitcoin's design. We users choose the design of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is permissionless.
Because permissionlessness allows anyone to innovate Bitcoin, even if it goes against established interests, well, that's why I think all of us, working in our own (possibly sometimes divergent) ways to do what we believe will be best for Bitcoin, will in fact ultimately produce what is best for Bitcoin.
submitted by tsontar to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Solusi dari Bitcoin

Mari kita pelajari teori lebih mendalam dari Bitcoin.
  1. Aset dan transaksi ledjer (ledger)/sejarah
Kalian tahu ga apa itu ledjer. Sebenarnya ledjer itu adalah rekor komplit untuk aktivitas ekonomi.
Blockchain (rangkaian blok) itu tamper-proof (tidak bisa diubah) berhubungan dengan ledjer.
SHA-256 itu adalah kriptografik hash dimana bisa dipakai untuk konfirmasi integritas dan autentik transaksi. Sebuah algoritma yang membentuk 256-bit (32 byte) hash
Dulunya orang memakai ledjer untuk rekor aktivitas ekonomi yakni buku catatan. Tapi sekarang ini ledjer disimpan dalam sistem komputer. Sebenarnya pencatat buku ini atau penyimpan ledjer sekarang ini ga aman loh. Mereka bisa saja dapat uang suap untuk mengganti nama pemilik tanah. Selain itu, rekor data pun bisa saja hilang tanpa sengaja.
Selama ini sejarah transaksi kita untuk banking, kartu kredit, financial statement perusahaan, reservasi hotel, data apapun yang berhubungan dengan passport, memang semua disimpan si 'penjaga' buku. Kalau dipikir pikir, aman sih semua aktivitas kita di rekor oleh centralized keeper?
Sekarang apa nih solusi Bitcoin? BITCOIN ini decentralized ledger dan ada 3 manfaat besar -tidak dirahasiakan -tidak bisa dipalsukan datanya -data tidak akan pernah hilang
Kenapa Bitcoin? Dulunya komputer di tahun 1975 kemudian Internet tahun 1993 lalu sekarang Bitcoin tahun 2014. Caranya adalah, bitcoin akan mengantar porsi kecil dari properti digital dari yang satu ke yang lain. Bitcoin menjamin keaslian transaksi tersebut, aman juga.
Bitcoin ini didukung oleh konsensus yang terbentuk dari jutaan orang didunia. Bitcoin 'white paper' (kertas putih) ditulis tanggal 31 Oktober 2008.
  1. Bitcoin untuk selesaikan permasalah Jeneral Byzantine
bitcoin itu adalah unit mata uang Bitcoin itu adalah konsep, networking Bitcoin alamat terdiri dari banyak kata-kata dengan angka-angka dimana bitcoin dapat dikirim Blockchain (rangkaian blok) adalah catatan lengkap transaksi untuk bitcoin, ataupun disebut ledjer publik
Adapun kegunaan dari BITCOIN REFERENCE CLIENT SOFTWARE untuk menyimpan semua sejarah transaksi. Tidak ada sistem sentral yang mengontrol penyimpanan transaksi. Ini hanya dipakai di antara Clients.
Bitcoin mengkonfirmasikan transaksi melalui proses 'mining'. Mining ini akan menciptakan bitcoin baru dengan setiap blok. Seperi Bank yang bisa menciptakan uang kertas baru. Namun, bitcoin ada jumlah maksimalnya yaitu 21 juta. Bitcoin dapat menjaga integritas dari setiap blok melalui tenaga komputer (proof-of-work)
Tahap pertama - Miners (penggali) akan mengumumkan transaksi dengan blok dan mengverifikasikan semua itu sah. Tahap kedua - Aplikasikan fungsi dari kriptografik hash dari blok sebelumnya ke blok selanjutnya Tahap ketiga - Selesaikan Proof-of-work
Kalau blok itu berhasil diselesaikan maka akan ada hasil penghargaan. Kesusahan untuk menyelesaikan blok transaksi adalab setiap 2016 blok (lebih kurang dua minggu) jadinya network bitcoin membentuk satu blok yang sah setiap 10 menit. Pakai komputer lama ataupun baru tetap akan membentuk blok setiap 10 menit.
Mari kita bahas sedikit tentang proof-of-work, sistem ini adalah kunci elemen untuk sekuritas ledjer. Ini untuk mencegah pencurian data dari hacker.
Penggali (miner) yang memiliki setidaknya 50% tenaga hash dalam sistem. Ketika seorang penggali memiliki tenaga hash melebihi 50% maka dia akan punya rangkaian yang lebih panjang dari penggali lainnya. Ini akan berdampak buruk karena dia dapat mencegah bitcoin untuk bertransaksi.
Oleh karena itu, untuk menjaga kejujuran ekosistem maka seorang penggali mengamankan hanya 50% sistem komputer dan tak lebih.
submitted by nosredna_008 to u/nosredna_008 [link] [comments]

Where can one download the latest Bitcoin Cash reference client? (The one that bitcoin.com supports)

I'm having the hardest time finding this...cannot even find it on gasp bitcoin.com :(
submitted by robertgenito to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Haipo Yang (ViaBTC): Bitcoin Cash is Defined by BitcoinCash.org, Which Lists ABC as the Reference Client

Haipo Yang (ViaBTC): Bitcoin Cash is Defined by BitcoinCash.org, Which Lists ABC as the Reference Client submitted by gotamd to btc [link] [comments]

Miners do not determine consensus (why the Longest Difficulty Chain Argument is Flawed)

Miners are an important part of consensus. Not only are they nodes themselves, and thus have as much of a voice as any other node in the network, but they perform an essential function in the consensus algorithm of Bitcoin by staking electricity to secure the network through mining blocks.
In determining what blockchain the network will follow, nodes will follow the blockchain with the most accumulated proof of work. This is expressed by seeing which blocks of transactions concatenated through cryptographic signatures is the longest.
Or is it?
This argument, used by S2X supporters such as Xapo and Coinbase, is used to appear as if they are neutral in the issue and aren't explicitly supporting the fork. But to understand why they are maliciously using semantics and half truths to mislead and manipulate the meaning of consensus, let's look at what their argument leads to, and if it is objectively correct to begin with.
By implication of the Longest Difficult Chain argument, miners, who decide which blocks to mine, can determine consensus if a group of them gain 51%+ hashrate by colluding to mine specific blocks. Since S2X has majority hashrate, these companies are effectively expressing support for S2X and have prepared a future justification to make it seem like they are going with consensus, as opposed to the truth: they have already decided which side they want to win. (Unless they genuinely believe consensus is determined by miners, which in my opinion is tantamount to heinous negligence for these multimillion dollar corporations.)
But if consensus is really determined solely by whichever chain is the longest, then the point I'm trying to make is moot. No matter how I would personally feel about it, if 51%+ miners collude to mine a specific chain, making it the longest, they can determine consensus.
Turns out, longest difficulty chain alone does not determine consensus.
Consensus is determined by the longest VALID chain.
This is so important as to why Segwit2x will fail and cost the attackers a lot of money I will repeat this again: CONSENSUS IS DETERMINED BY THE LONGEST VALID CHAIN
Turns out validity is not determined by miners alone. Validity is determined by the reference client the majority of nodes are running (miner or non-miner). Each Bitcoin reference client (such as Bitcoin core for example) has a set of rules, or protocol, that determine what type of transactions and blocks are accepted by the nodes running that protocol.
This is why the statement "We will follow consensus by offering our services and supporting the longest difficulty chain" is a fake offering of peace. It sneakily redefines what consensus means to take legitimacy away from all the other nodes that actually determine real consensus to include just miners.
In essence, this is not true because the majority of nodes' validation rules (Bitcoin Core) do not support the proposed S2X implementation, therefore rejecting S2X blokcs, leading to a hard fork. Newcomers to bitcoin won't know this, but it used to be that hard forks were avoided at all costs because (as we are seeing) they can get messy as fuck. However, the fact that there is going to be a hard fork to begin with shows that even though S2X chain will be longer, S2X CHAIN IS NOT A VALID CHAIN TO BEGIN WITH
Think about how obvious this point is, without even bringing scripts or anything technical in the picture: if longest chain was all that was necessary, the freaking testnet blockchain would be the "true bitcoin". Hell, litecoin would be the "true bitcoin", or ethereum. They obviously don't count because they use totally different rules in their ecosystems, making them a completely separate NON VALID chain in terms of determining which one has the Bitcoin community consensus.
This is all well and good, but the threat isn't quite over yet. In theory all that S2X miners\businesses need to make the attack work is to make the S2X chain more profitable to mine than the bitcoin chain. So in theory, if enough exchanges collude with miners, they can create enough of a market for S2X miners to keep mining S2X.
But as recent exchange (and mining pools!) defections from Segwit2x support points out, if the real consensus is against S2X, it is not worth it to try and attack bitcoin that way. True consensus comes from what reference client fully validating nodes run, and by extension, what blockchain is valid to begin with. If the opinion of nodes (expressed by the reference client they choose to run) was truly irrelevant, then there would be nothing contentious to begin with. Add the fact that exchanges HATE the fact S2X won't add replay protection (another topic for another time), and the chances the attack will succeed are slim to none.
To newcomers in the space: there used to be a time when hard forking was extremely frowned upon by the community because it leads to all sorts of mess, nodes being left out, people potentially losing all their bitcoin etc. Nowadays, it seems as if there's a hard fork waiting to happen every other month.
Do not despair, it is simply a part of Bitcoin's growing pains and in the long run should be welcomed. Bitcoin is on the verge of successfully proving its resilience against what used to be seen as something so dangerous it was almost taboo to speak of: a contentious hard fork with majority hashrate AND exchange support
I hope this makes consensus clear, and if I was factually wrong in any of my statements please correct me. Unlike my previous post explaining the Segwit2x attackin a nutshell. I kept this as factual as possible and refrained from attacking anyone.
Stay crypto
EDIT: Some smart people have pointed out that node count doesn't determine consensus. I expressed myself incorrectly and these people are correct. The point of this post is to introduce an essential caveat to consensus: validity. You can't actually have consensus (as represented by PoW done by miners) if this consensus isn't considered valid by the majority of the network. That being said, validity alone doesn't mean shit without consensus being generated by PoW
Moral of the story: miners are the ones who create consensus, but the reason that isn't a problem is that the WHOLE network decides what consensus means. so if miners deviate from the consensus rules in attempt to attack the network, their consensus won't be valid anymore. beautiful, deliberate, game theoretical based security model :)
submitted by HavocMMA to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Developers Fork ABC Reference Implementation Client, Create "BCH Node"

Bitcoin Cash Developers Fork ABC Reference Implementation Client, Create submitted by afriendofsatoshi to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin ABC has left a goddamn BACKDOOR in BCH reference client code, therefore Bitcoin ABC team are traitors. Change my mind.

submitted by ShadowOfHarbringer to btc [link] [comments]

PODCAST Bitcoin Cash Reference Client Looks to Raise Sustainable Funding

PODCAST Bitcoin Cash Reference Client Looks to Raise Sustainable Funding submitted by afriendofsatoshi to btc [link] [comments]

PODCAST Bitcoin Cash Reference Client Looks to Raise Sustainable Funding

PODCAST Bitcoin Cash Reference Client Looks to Raise Sustainable Funding submitted by afriendofsatoshi to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Jihan Wu: "blocksize is a minor issue that cost the community so much damage. It has given too much opportunities for some people who are altcoin developers. We have more challenge to solve, for the future of Bitcoin rather than a blocksize thing."

Jihan_Bitmain full quote : "Hi I am fine. Thank you. I am pretty busy after the U.S. trip, and I don't have the time and mood to talk on the social media right now. But I read on btc and bitcoin. BIP109 is a compromise. They want to reach something by compromising, but it will not work. 2MB cap would bring us trouble in less than 1 year if it is selected by miners. I don't think I will vote for BIP109. We need a plan that will not drag the community into the blocksize issue from now on. For the growth of Bitcoin, blocksize is a minor issue that cost the community so much damage. It has given too much opportunities for some people who are altcoin developers but also claiming to be Bitcoin reference client software developers. We have more challenge to solve, for the future of Bitcoin rather than a blocksize thing. Bitcoin has a very long way to go to be a world reserve currency. I think everyone reading this post should buy a mini PC, like Intel NUC, in his home, with 500G-1TB disk and wifi. It cost less than 500$. It is running a full node, so don't go extreme to try to run it on a 10$ worth second handed RasPi. It will be able to support the network for at least 2-3 years. By adding HDD on the USB port and some pruning, it will be lasting even longer. You can express your point of view by running a certain kind of full node you like. It will be much more cheap and stable than running in VPS in the long term."
submitted by Guy_Tell to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Governance You Choose: Bitcoin Unlimited's Phoenix Blockchain - Bitcoin Peter Steinmetz BITCOIN HASH WARS PT.2 Bitcoin News 21st March: Bitcoin Reference Client Updated CoinSpice Podcast 75 Bitcoin Cash Reference Client Looks to Raise Sustainable Funding

Bitcoind is a “reference client” created by the core team of Bitcoin developers. This is a full-fledged bitcoin node that downloads the entire transaction history (blockchain) and processes transactions. Bitcoind is somewhat limited in functionality, for example, it cannot give you transaction history at an address that you did not import in advance. However, it provides a fairly powerful ... The Satoshi client or the Satoshi code refers to bitcoind, bitcoin-client, bitcoin-qt and Bitcoin Core.This is in honor of Satoshi Nakamoto for creating Bitcoin.. In the most widest sense: All releases of bitcoin-x.y.z (starting 2009) and future official releases by the "bitcoin core developers". In the narrow sense: Download Bitcoin for free. A software-based online payment system. Bitcoin is a decentralized P2P electronic cash system without a central server or trusted parties. Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transact directly with each other, with the help of the network to check for double-spending. 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. To remove the confusion between the Bitcoin network and the reference client implementation that we maintain in this repository, both confusingly named 'bitcoin', we'd like to rebrand the client. This has been discussed a lot before, but the following is the proposal by @gavinandresen and I agree: Bitcoin-Qt --> btcore (full name 'Bitcoin Core') bitcoind --> btcored (full name 'Bitcoin Core ...

[index] [2570] [14862] [1048] [15943] [49725] [13112] [8626] [23635] [17302] [9789]

The Governance You Choose: Bitcoin Unlimited's "Articles of Federation"

Bitcoin's core developers release Version 0.9.0: Bitcoin's core developers have released the latest update to the bitcoin reference client. Version 0.9.0 includes transaction malleability-related ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. CoinSpice Podcast 75 Bitcoin Cash Reference Client Looks to Raise Sustainable Funding - Duration: 39:01. CoinSpice 93 views. 39:01. Bitcoin Cash Hash War: The Hard Fork Aftermath Explained ... Bitcoin Core is a quick deployment official Bitcoin cryptocurrency client. Bitcoin Core Server for Windows 2016 Bitcoin Core is an open-source software that serves as a bitcoin node (the set of ... Explore these questions with the written policies of Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). BU is an alternative reference client to Bitcoin Core for nodes and miners to use. Check out our new channel! http ...

#