Blockchain - Definition und Erklärung - FOCUS Online

Grayscale: "Explore the underlying ... Learn more about the history and defining characteristics of Bitcoin Cash $BCH in our report, which is part of the Building Blocks series"

Grayscale: submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Let's get this straight: Intentional reorgs and mining empty blocks to prevent regular users transacting is an attack as defined in the Bitcoin white paper, anyone doing that is an attacker and a dishonest miner.

CSW&shills try to claim that intentionally causing reorgs to wreak havoc with the intent of making the chain unreliable and therefore for people, services, merchants and exchanges to lose money is fair game "because PoW".
This is complete nonsense, Bitcoin relies on its incentive mechanisms to prevent exactly that:
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments [causing reorgs], or using it to generate new coins.
An honest miner should never engage in such behavior as incentives are aligned to prevent precisely that behavior. Any miner doing this is defined as an dishonest miner and an attacker per the white paper definitions:
If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes.
It is abundantly clear that any miner intentionally modifying past blocks [reorging the chain] is considered an attacker!
There is no ambiguity here, this has been clear to any reasonable person here but it apparently needs to be spelled out for CSW shills and any newcomers that could be fooled by their selective rhetoric.
So the fact that what CSW&co. are threating to do is in fact an attack is indisputable.
As a side note, since this is clearly defined as an attack, obviously so, anyone losing money as a consequence of these attacks (especially exchanges) could possibly have a legal recourse against any miners/pools executing such an attack as they directly and intentionally [just cite CSW] caused them to lose money by their dishonest actions. So it's possible CSW&co. could get a taste of their own medicine and get sued for damages intentionally caused by them. Could be a long shot but if anyone actually does lose money because of CSW's attacks, they certainly should pursue that.
submitted by mushner to btc [link] [comments]

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned.

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned. submitted by VeritasSapere to btc [link] [comments]

Miners: You'll (very likely) need to upgrade your Bitcoin Core node soon to support BIP66 | Peter Todd | Jun 12 2015

Peter Todd on Jun 12 2015:
Summary
The BIP66 soft-fork recently passed the 75% support threshold. This
means that 75% of the hashing power has upgraded to support BIP66; 25%
of the hashing power has not. Once 95% of the hashing power has
upgraded, blocks created by the 5% who have not upgraded will be
rejected.
If you operate a pool, solo-mine, or mine on p2pool you'll very likely
need to upgrade your Bitcoin Core node to support the BIP66 soft-fork,
or your blocks will be rejected. If you only sell your hashing power to
a centralized pool you do not need to do anything.
How does the Bitcoin protocol measure BIP66 support?
Miners that have upgraded to support BIP66 create blocks with the
version field set to 3; non-upgraded miners set the version to 2.
Bitcoin Core measures BIP66 support by counting how many blocks with
version >= 3 exist in the blockchain within the last 1000 blocks.
If 750 out of the last 1000 blocks support BIP66, blocks with the
version set to >= 3 that do not follow the BIP66 rules are rejected; if
950 out of the last 1000 blocks support BIP66, blocks with version < 3
are rejected.
When will the 95% threshold be reached?
It's unknown exactly when the 95% threshold will be reached. The BIP34
soft-fork went from 75% to 95% support in a about two weeks, however
more or less time is possible; it's possible that the 95% threshold will
be reached in just a few days.
How can I monitor BIP66 adoption?
See Pieter Wuille's graphs:
[http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-ever.png](http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-ever.png) 
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-50k.png
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-10k.png
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-2k.png
The 'ever' and '50k' graphs show the 75% and 95% thresholds.
What software supports support BIP66?
Bitcoin Core releases later than v0.10.0 support BIP66.
In addition, v0.9.5 supports BIP66, however we recommend that you
upgrade to v0.10.2
If you run a pool, you may also need to upgrade your pool software as
well. For instance, eloipool versions prior to May 22nd 2015, git commit
f5f4ea636fb38f38e6d9a04aad1f04427556a4bc, do not support BIP66. (For
Eloipool, cb8a5e8fbb4bfdfe9e35f670082603caff65e1b2 is a clean merge that
should work for any branch more recent than 2013 April 6)
Solo miners and decentralised miners using GBT need to also update their
mining software to a currently supported version of BFGMiner to get
support for v3 blocks. The official BFGMiner binaries include this
update with 5.1.0, 4.10.2, and 3.10.9.
What is BIP66?
BIP66 - "Strict DER signatures" - is a soft-fork that tightens the rules
for signature verification, specifically the way that signatures are
encoded. The Bitcoin Core implementation currently relies on OpenSSL for
signature validation, which means it implicitly defines Bitcoin's block
validity rules. Unfortunately, OpenSSL is not designed for
consensus-critical behaviour (it does not guarantee bug-for-bug
compatibility between versions), and thus changes to it can - and have -
affected Bitcoin software. (see CVE-2014-8275)
By tightening these rules BIP66 reduces the risk that changes to OpenSSL
will cause forks in the Bitcoin blockchain, as seen previously by the
March 2013 fork. Secondly reducing our dependency on OpenSSL is a step
towards replacing OpenSSL with libsecp256k1, a signature validation
library from Pieter Wuille and Gregory Maxwell, that is designed for
consensus-critical applications, as well as being significantly faster
than OpenSSL.
Is it possible that the BIP66 soft-fork will not happen?
In theory yes, though it is unlikely and rejection of BIP66 would be a
very ugly process. Unfortunately the existing soft-fork mechanism
provides no mechanism for a soft-fork to expire, so once set in motion
there is no clean way to stop a soft-fork.
There is a proposal from Wuille/Maxwell/Todd, to reform how soft-forks
are adopted that aims to fix this issue, as well as allow multiple
soft-forks be adopted in parallel:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07863.html

'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/d56b6e78/attachment.sig>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008578.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham: Segwit2x is not about increasing the block size, it's about removing "Core's" access and control of the Bitcoin repo to a group who believes that [Core] are technically sound, with no defined leadership, are unwilling to compromise and are a law unto themselves.

Vinny Lingham: Segwit2x is not about increasing the block size, it's about removing submitted by NaturalBornHodler to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Coinbase to follow whitepaper in November: "The winning fork I’m defining here as the longest bitcoin chain (measured by amount of 'work' or hashing power done on it) originating from Satoshi’s genesis block. I’m defining the 'moment the network upgrades' as when the proposed change takes effect."

Coinbase to follow whitepaper in November: submitted by moonjob to btc [link] [comments]

This is how Coinbase CEO considers forks: "The winning fork I’m defining here as the longest bitcoin chain (measured by amount of 'work' or hashing power done on it) originating from Satoshi’s genesis block. I’m defining the 'moment the network upgrades' as when the proposed change takes effect."

This is how Coinbase CEO considers forks: submitted by cryptorebel to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

This is how Coinbase CEO considers forks: "The winning fork I’m defining here as the longest bitcoin chain (measured by amount of 'work' or hashing power done on it) originating from Satoshi’s genesis block. I’m defining the 'moment the network upgrades' as when the proposed change takes effect."

This is how Coinbase CEO considers forks: submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

"The winning fork I’m defining here as the longest bitcoin chain (measured by amount of “work” or hashing power done on it) originating from Satoshi’s genesis block." -Brian Armstrong

submitted by newtobch to btc [link] [comments]

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned.

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned. submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned.

SV will not succeed in attacking BCH. The defense is simple, honest miners should orphan malicious blocks that contain attacks. Reorgs and emptyblocks are defined as attacks by the Bitcoin whitepaper. Anyone carrying out such an attack is a dishonest miner and should be orphaned. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Let's get this straight: Intentional reorgs and mining empty blocks to prevent regular users transacting is an attack as defined in the Bitcoin white paper, anyone doing that is an attacker and a dishonest miner. /r/btc

Let's get this straight: Intentional reorgs and mining empty blocks to prevent regular users transacting is an attack as defined in the Bitcoin white paper, anyone doing that is an attacker and a dishonest miner. /btc submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin actually has two areas of "consensus": consensus on the next block to append to the chain, *and* consensus on the rules defining a valid block. Both forms of consensus *must* use a simple majority of 51%. Changing this to 95% would be dangerous, because it would allow 6% to hijack Bitcoin.

Summary:
Bitcoin actually has two areas of "consensus":
Both forms of consensus must use a simple majority of 51% - but always combined, of course, with the other "meta-rule" of Bitcoin: the economic incentive where everyone wants to maximize the value of the bitcoins they hold (also known as "greed").
For example, the reason we will always have only 21 million coins is because of the meta-rules of 51% + economic incentives.
People are greedy, and so they will never want to devalue their coins.
(In other words, the permanence of the 21 million coin rule is not guaranteed by inertia, or 95% consensus, or censorship, or anything of that nature. It is guaranteed by Satoshi's original meta-rules of 51% + greed.)
Now some people want to change Bitcoin - from 51% consensus to 95% consensus. (They like to call this "strong consensus" but a better name would probably be "extreme consensus".) To them, 95% sounds "safer". But actually, 95% would be dangerous.
This is because sometimes most people might agree that Bitcoin might actually need to change (eg, right now, when blocks are full, and the network is congested and people's transactions aren't getting through).
This shows that requiring 95% to make this kind of desirable / urgent change would actually be dangerous - because it allows a mere 6% to prevent a needed change. (Plus, by the way: the 1 MB "max blocksize" was never even a "consensus rule" - it was actually just a "temporary anti-spam kludge.")
Conclusion: The only way that Bitcoin can succeed is by keeping Satoshi's original meta-rules of 51% + economic incentives.
Details:
Since the network is too congested today for me to do any transactions, I guess I'll just have to write another post. =)
As we know, Satoshi's main innovation with Bitcoin was to create a giant, incentive-based, worldwide "Consensus-tron" (which in turn drives a world-wide ledger):
Changes to the ruleset (ie, changes to the definition of what constitutes a valid block) are sometimes further subdivided into "hard forks" versus "soft forks", where:
So what's the point of all this?
Maybe you can already see that this is heading to the following two main points:
Let's examine these two points in more detail below:
The BLOCK-APPENDING CONSENSUS was directly built-in by Satoshi - so it gets decided automatically and algorithmically by the software on the network
The mechanism for determining the 51% consensus regarding the next block to append is baked directly into the software itself. This is Satoshi's famous "good enough" solution to the long-standing Byzantine Generals Problem.
A key element of this "good enough" solution was Satoshi's clever introduction of a "valuable token" (bitcoins).
(Aside: Most plans by financial institutions to use some sort of private, permissioned "blockchain technology" fail to include the essential ingredient of the "valuable tokens" themselves. This is why their efforts are doomed to fail. Bitcoin is held together by economic incentives, which are provided by the valuable token: the bitcoins themselves.)
These valuable tokens are granted as the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" for the miner whose block happens to get chosen for appending (via the hashing lottery).
Also a miner gets some "fees" for mining a transaction. For the first few decades of operation, fees are negligible compared to the amount of the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" - in order to encourage the system to grow.
As the past 7 years have shown, these "economic incentives" are enough to discourage miners from various "selfish" behaviors which would harm the value of the "valuable tokens" themselves.
Aside: This "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" is quite big - currently 25 BTC every 10 minutes, and then, from mid-July 2016, it will "halve" to 12.5 BTC every ten minutes for the next 4 years until the next "halving", and so on asymptotically "halving" every four years until 2140.
Satoshi purposely made the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" quite large like this for the first several halvings, in order to:
  • encourage rapid adoption by miners
  • discourage premature "fee markets" - since, as blocks get bigger (as he planned) and bitcoin price gets higher (as the "economic incentives" of the system were designed to guarantee), the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" itself would provide more than enough profit motive for miners.
Decades from now, when bitcoin price is very high, and the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" is very low, fees will become a more important component of miner revenues.
The SOFTWARE-INSTALLING CONSENSUS was not specified as forcefully / explicitly - and it now being negotiated by certain people - on IRC, on Reddit and other forums, at congresses, in back-room deals, etc.
This off-line negotiation towards consensus might actually work - but only if Bitcoin's essential "meta-rules" (51% + greed) continue to be preserved.
In other words:
  • This negotiation towards consensus must be decentralized / market-based / economically incentivized as originally specified;
  • "Winning" must be continue to be defined via a simple majority of 51% (to prevent a "tyranny of the minority" where less than 50% can hijack Bitcoin by unfairly exploiting inertia in order to block necessary changes).
Observations
(1) Each of the above "meta-rules" alone would not be sufficient to guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
(2) But taken together, the combination of:
  • an "economic incentive" (greed) plus
  • a "51% majority"
... is enough to secure the network and maximize people's wealth - as we have seen empirically for the past 7 years, with Bitcoin's price rising from 0 to 700 USD, and the network humming along perfectly.
The next point (3) - including its various subpoints - is what some people don't understand:
(3) Regarding the determining of the "software-installing consensus" part of Bitcoin:
  • "Inertia" (difficulty of change) is not and has never been the thing which guarantees the desirable properties of the system.
  • "Economic incentive" plus a "51% majority" has always been and always will be the only things which guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
  • Note that the above "meta-rules" are in some sense "natural" (ie, inevitable or unstoppable): ie, Satoshi didn't "invent" them, they already occur "on their own" in decentralized economic systems, and he merely leveraged them - by observing that their natural influence would always be enough to make sure that the majority don't do anything against their own interests, and that the majority's wishes can't be overridden by a minority.
  • For example, the reason we would never increase the maximum number of coins above 21 million is not because it's difficult, nor because some kind of super-consensus would be needed, nor because some online forums are censored. The reason we will never change the 21 million coin limit is natural and inevitable, because it is based on greed and not on any fragile centralized mechanism: since we don't want to "dilute" the value of our coins.
  • The only way the above meta-rules could possibly be short-circuited is by cheating in some way (ie, by centralizing development or mining, by censoring forums, etc.)
  • Redefining the numerical threshold to require a higher percentage, such as 95%, is not what guarantees the desirable properties of the system.
  • In fact, redefining the numerical threshold for consensus for making changes to Bitcoin, changing it from 51% to 95% (which supporters like to call "strong consensus" to make it sound nice - but which detractors more correctly call "extreme consensus" to emphasize how radical and dangerous it it) would actually destroy the desirable properties of the system.
  • This is because requiring a 95% majority in order to "change Bitcoin" would actually allow a "tyranny of the minority" to happen - where a mere 6% could prevent a change from happening - when such a change would have been easily approved by Satoshi's original meta-rule of "51% simple majority" + "economic incentives".
  • The "consensus area" (ie, the question of whether a change would impact the "block-appending consensus" or the "software-installing consensus") is an irrelevant issue, totally unrelated (orthogonal) to the only important question, which is: whether a particular change would continue to guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
  • The "rollout hardness" (ie, the question of whether or not nodes must upgrade in order for the change to be rolled out) is an irrelevant "accident of implementation" and, as such, is also totally unrelated (orthogonal) to the only important question: whether a particular change would continue to guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
Satoshi created a very brilliant system, which some clueless newbies are trying to change.
Based on Satoshi's original meta-rules of "51% + greed", you get this simple and robust system called Bitcoin which has been working fine for the past 7 years.
Satoshi's simple meta-rules of "51% + greed" not only allow coins to be moved securely while maintaining and increasing their value. They also allow software to be upgraded securely while also maximizing the value of everybody's bitcoins.
Unfortunately, now Bitcoin has been infiltrated by a group of "small-block" supporters who don't understand various parts of (3) above.
They don't understand the power of Bitcoin's meta-rules (51% + greed), and they've started to try to change them. (Some of these clueless newbies have actually been heard at conferences saying "Fuck Satoshi"!)
Small-block supporters are basing their arguments on the following fallacies, which are only convincing to naïve people (ie, people who forget about the "economic incentives" which Satoshi built in to the original system):
  • they erroneously believe that "95%" would be "safer" than "51%";
  • they erroneously believe that "harder to change" (due to inertia) would be "safer" than "easier to change".
By the way, some of us have recently started to notice that most of these "naïve people" appear to be relatively new to Bitcoin, and/or have smaller holdings (eg, they missed the boat due to being uninformed or skeptical in earlier years, or they lost money on MtGox). These factors might be contributing to their desire to not see the value of the "valuable tokens" (bitcoins) go up right now.
So, Bitcoin's "Eternal September" which some small-block supporters worry will happen in the future (similar to the "Eternal September" of the internet, when clueless newbies rushed in)... is actually already happening right now.
Small-block supporters are actually Bitcoin's "Eternal September".
They're the clueless newbies whose failure to understand Bitcoin's economic incentives is threatening to destroy Bitcoin.
We can see this right now - where the system is becoming congested, causing needless delays, artificially inflating fees, and driving away users.
The small-block supporters are to blame for this mess. They're so dogmatically against bigger blocks, that they'd rather see the system stop working, rather than change their dogma.
(One of the most well-known of these "clueless newbies" has stated - on another forum - that he would rather see the price of Bitcoin go to zero, rather than allow Satoshi's original meta-rules of "greed + 51%" to continue to be applied.)
The thing which such "naïve people" always fail to include in their analysis is the "economic incentive" or "greed": ie, the desire, on the part of miners / users / holders, to maximize the value of the "valuable tokens" - everyone's bitcoins.
This "economic incentive" is more subtle than it may seem - which is why so many people accidentally forget about it (including supposedly smart devs like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back)
Who are the two groups who forget about the "economic incentive" ("greed") component which guarantees the success of Bitcoin?
  • small-block supporters - who fail to understand (3) above;
  • people from private financial institutions - who also fail to understand (3) above, when they foolishly attempt to use "blockchain technology" without a "valuable token" (the bitcoins themselves) to provide the necessary "economic incentive" to guarantee the desirable properties of the network.
The current mess is happening because the interests of major financiers from the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat (eg, the owners of Core/Blockstream) are in alignment with the economic ignorance of the "clueless newbies" who want to "improve" Satoshi's meta-rules of "51% + greed".
Together, these two groups of economically ignorant (or malicious) people are creating the "perfect storm" we're seeing now, where the network is becoming crippled.
The only way for Bitcoin to prosper is for us to remember Satoshi's original meta-rules: "51% + greed" - regarding the next block to append, and the next software to install.
This is the only way to protect our economic self-interest, and prevent a "tyranny of the minority" from hijacking the system.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

"The winning fork Im defining here as the longest bitcoin chain (measured by amount of work or hashing power done on it) originating from Satoshis genesis block." -Brian Armstrong

submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

07-09 13:32 - 'It's intellectually dishonest to restrict the block size and not define the exact requirements for a block size increase. Without those requirements clearly outlined, the restriction is arbitrary and most probably just the desi...' by /u/moo82 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 445-455min

'''
It's intellectually dishonest to restrict the block size and not define the exact requirements for a block size increase. Without those requirements clearly outlined, the restriction is arbitrary and most probably just the desire of a self interested partisan group.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: moo82
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Block Chain Summit: WE ARE GATHERING TOP THINKERS IN THE WORLD OF BLOCKCHAIN, DIGITAL CURRENCY AND BITCOIN TO HELP DEFINE THE FUTURE

submitted by Usernamemeh to Nanoeconomics [link] [comments]

block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it) | Adam Back | Jun 30 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it) | Adam Back | Jun 30 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

10-22 04:53 - '[quote] By validating every single block and every single transaction. / So let's talk about nodes and consensus as defined in the whitepaper and implemented in nodes. / Let's start with [the bitcoin white paper] : / [quot...' by /u/Frogolocalypse removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-8min

'''
Can you please skip to the part where you explain how user nodes secure the network?
By validating every single block and every single transaction.
So let's talk about nodes and consensus as defined in the whitepaper and implemented in nodes.
Let's start with [the bitcoin white paper]1 :
Satoshi from the Bitcoin white-paper chapter 12 'Conclusion' : The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
First, you have to understand what 'consensus' actually means :
[link]4
A fundamental problem in distributed computing and multi-agent systems is to achieve overall system reliability in the presence of a number of faulty processes. This often requires processes to agree on some data value that is needed during computation. Examples of applications of consensus include whether to commit a transaction to a database (or, for example, committing blocks to a blockchain), agreeing on the identity of a leader, state machine replication, and atomic broadcasts. The real world applications include clock synchronization, PageRank, opinion formation, smart power grids, state estimation, control of UAVs, load balancing and others.
What does this mean if you are but an intrepid traveler amongst the erstwhile numpty-folk?
Nodes are agents in a multi-agent system with [an agreed set of consensus rules]2 , which they and they alone enforce, that ensure that the system functions. Transactions are propagated through the multi-agent network based upon the agreed consensus rules by nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Miners retrieve valid transactions from any of these nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then order the transactions, and perform a hashing function on them until the hashing function returns a value that is suitable to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then pass the new block that they've created to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. The nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, then validate the block to ensure that each of the transactions within the block agree with the consensus rules. Then the node, which is an agent in a multi-agent system, extends the block-chain by attaching the new block to it. They then pass the new block, if it is valid, to other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Then each of these other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, each do the same validation on every block.
Nodes accept incoming transactions and validate them. Miners don't. Nodes replicate transactions to other nodes. Miners don't. Miners take transactions from nodes, and order them in a block, and perform a hashing function on them (the only thing they do). Miners pass the new block to the node. The node validates the transactions in the block. Miners don't. The node validates the block. Miners don't. The node extends the blockchain. Miners don't. The node replicates the block to other nodes. Miners don't. It is the validation of the nodes, and their CPU's, that define and police consensus in bitcoin.
There is only one function that miners do. They take transactions, put them in a block, and hash them. As soon as a miner produces a block that nodes don't want, it is rejected.
So nodes accept the transactions, validate the transactions (using their CPU), replicate the transactions, maintain the mempools, validate the blocks (using their CPU), extend the blockchain (using their CPU), replicate the blocks, serve the blockchain, and store the blockchain. Nodes even define the PoW algorithm that miners have to employ. If you can't convince these node owners that are using their node on a day-to-day basis, to uninstall their node software and install your new node client, especially when that node client decreases their node security and decreases the network security, any change you have is going to go exactly nowhere.
So nodes maintain the protocol, not miners. It is thus. It has always been thus. If you can't convince all of those node owners running their node clients to uninstall one client and re-install another, any change you have to consensus is DOA.
See for yourself. [Download it.]3 It's currently at 0.15.0.1
[link]5
A full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes.
Ya need to turn off that rbtc tap. It makes ya stoopid.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Frogolocalypse
1: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 2: https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/how-does-a-bitcoin-node-verify-a-transaction/ 3: https://bitcoin.org/en/download 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_%28computer_science%29 5: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham: Segwit2x is not about increasing the block size, it's about removing "Core's" access and control of the Bitcoin repo to a group who believes that [Core] are technically sound, with no defined leadership, are unwilling to compromise and are a law unto themselves.

Vinny Lingham: Segwit2x is not about increasing the block size, it's about removing submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it | Michael Naber | Jun 30 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it | Michael Naber | Jun 30 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

08-17 00:02 - 'Segwit is an upgrade that fixes bugs and increases the block size, but Segwit is a soft fork. It is this backwards compatibility that is the defining characteristic of a soft-fork. There is a large cohort of people not ev...' by /u/Frogolocalypse removed from /r/Bitcoin within 4-14min

'''
Segwit is an upgrade that fixes bugs and increases the block size, but Segwit is a soft fork. It is this backwards compatibility that is the defining characteristic of a soft-fork. There is a large cohort of people not even interested in that. These people don't care about increased block sizes. They don't care about transaction fees. They don't care about long confirmation times. They probably never will.
Unchangeable money that shysters and charlatans can't change because of back room meetings is the strength of bitcoin, not a weakness. If you can't convince the nodes to accept your consensus changes, then you can create an alt that meets your use-case. Everyone else will just continue using bitcoin.
What would really assist you is to stop parroting the rbtc numpty-folk, and start learning how bitcoin actually works. You aren't providing new insights. If you find that reality isn't agreeing with your understanding, what you should be doing is questioning your understanding, not getting frustrated because people aren't acting as you think they should
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Frogolocalypse
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Where in Bitcoin Cash's github is the maximum block size defined? /r/btc

Where in Bitcoin Cash's github is the maximum block size defined? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

How Bitcoin Works Under the Hood - YouTube How to buy Bitcoin for Beginners - YouTube Block Reward Halvings for Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies ... How To Create a Bitcoin Wallet on Blockchain Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining explained - YouTube

Wenn Paul einen Bitcoin an Lisa, Johann einen Bitcoin an Paula und Peter einen Bitcoin an Sophie überweist, werden alle Transaktionen durch eine Hash-Funktion kryptografisch verschlüsselt und in einem Transaktionsblock zusammengefasst. Die Transaktionen werden miteinander verrechnet, weil das Zeit und Speicherplatz einspart. Für jeden neu erstellen Block, erhalten Miner, also Betreiber ... Die Blockchain-Technologie bildet die Basis für Bitcoins und andere Kryptowährungen. Die Bitcoin-Einführung war gleichzeitig der erst praktische Blockchain-Anwendungsfall. At the end of this course, you will be able to explain the three fundamental characteristic that define the blockchain using Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin is not the only player in town. By the end of the first module, we move beyond Bitcoin into introducing the next generation blockchains with Ethereum. You will also be able to discuss the important features of Ethereum blockchain that is used ... When you make a bitcoin transaction, it isn’t added to the blockchain straight away. Instead, it is held in a transaction pool (or memory pool). Transaction Pool . If you are a miner, your job is to gather transactions from the transaction pool in to a “candidate block”, and to try and add this candidate block to the blockchain. Candidate Block Block header. You also can give each ... This block reward acts as an incentive for nodes to continue to build the blockchain, whilst simultaneously distributing new coins across the bitcoin network. Conclusion. Bitcoin is a computer program that shares a secure file with other computers around the world. This secure file is made up of transactions, and these transactions use cryptography to allow people to send and receive digital ...

[index] [21780] [43743] [8393] [1103] [22819] [44] [30457] [32709] [21386] [39614]

How Bitcoin Works Under the Hood - YouTube

In this video we introduce the basic concepts behind how new blocks are created in the Bitcoin blockchain. We start by taking another look at the blockchain.info website to see some sample blocks ... Subscribe to my bitcoin channel - https://calcur.tech/subscribe-curryncy Updated video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Q-A5BVw98 Join Coinbase and earn $... Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining explained with the Byzantine Generals Problem. We use it to explain the essence of cryptocurrency mining. https://www.udemy... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

#