We need to break up the unholy alliance between the Chinese miners and Core / Blockstream.
We signed up for a grand experiment that would be controlled by math and not by men. Now we've had a year where the community is coming apart at the seams and today top dev Mike Hearn is selling his coins and abandoning the project. Are we going to let Bitcoin be killed by 10 miners with cheap electricity & cooling behind the Great Firewall of China and a private company which wants to cripple our code by limiting space on the blockchain and adding double-spends and high fees? I'm really trying seriously here to put my finger on the main problems that are causing this whole Bitcoin thing to spin out of control. I think the two biggest problems are: (1) the concentration of most hashpower behind the Great Firewall of China, (2) allowing Blockstream to hijack Satoshi's codebase, so that they could:
artificially limit space on the blockchain (the 1 MB max blocksize), and
add support for double-spending unconfirmed transactions (RBF)
...both of which are essential for their flagship vaporware product Lightning Network. Analyzing these two problems in more detail: (1) Most hashpower is behind the Great Firewall of China Most hashpower is concentrated in China, behind what is essentially a network partition (or at least a major speed bump) on the global network topology: the Great Firewall of China. So if blocks got really big, the miners outside of China might actually suffer more, not the miners inside China (who have pretty decent bandwidth amongst themselves). (If you've already heard a million times about US jobs being exported to China, you can skip down to the next section - the short section starting with a sentence in bold saying "Wouldn't it be ironic..."). Now for a bit of economic background that most people know but I wanted to just review it here. As we know, countries such as the USA used to have a solid domestic manufacturing base. But then the power elite in the USA discovered that it was easier to fire more-expensive US workers and let underpaid Chinese workers breathing smog produce cheaper (ie, lower-price and often lower-quality) versions of those same goods - and then the Fed could just print up unlimited little pieces of paper (fiat US Dollars) to import all that stuff to the USA. Paying workers decent wages and keeping the air breathable would have been expensive, but the Chinese have evidently shown they're fine with sacrificing those things. So now:
lots of what used to be made in the US is now made in China,
Anyways, most people know about this outsourcing and money-printing situation I've just described, but I mentioned it here as a lead-in to suggest a weird ironic point about mining in China (in bold at the start of the next, short section below). As we also know, the world finally has real money now: Bitcoin. It's "real" because it's not infinitely printable by private central bankers who inject it into the economy as usurious debt, and because, like gold, its value doesn't depend on any "counterparty": you simply hold your value yourself, and verify it yourself - assuming you have enough bandwidth to run a full a/k/a verifying node. So, I'll finally give the weird ironic point I've been building up to: Wouldn't it be ironic if - now that we finally have "real", quality money - we let its "manufacturing" (issuance, mining) be outsourced to China? Because that looks like what we've actually been doing here. Plus, maybe in some un-apparent, heretofore un-considered sense, the Great Firewall of China really might be the ultimate form of "capital control". Forget all those articles you read on ZeroHedge about billions about dollars being smuggled out of China via Macau, with people strapping little bundles of cash to their bodies under their clothes: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-15/how-smuggle-money-out-china What if the real massive hemorrhaging of capital which the Chinese authorities are worried about is Bitcoin itself - and what if that's the main reason why they're gonna make sure they keep the Great Firewall of China in place - to keep billions (and maybe someday trillions?) of dollars in Bitcoins inside China? I don't think Satoshi took the Great Firewall of China into account in his planning. I think he just assumed there would be one globally connected internet, with no top-level partitions. So here's some things to think about:
From what I'm told, the Chinese work hard and they're wild about saving money - they have trillions of dollars in T-Bills, and a lot of them are into gold. In the aggregate, the country is swimming in various forms of wealth.
Also: their government has strict capital controls in place to try to prevent people from expatriating vast sums of wealth out of China.
And finally: many Chinese want real money. They know the dollar or the yuan could crash, so they want something which has no counterparty risk (like gold or bitcoin).
So I'd be curious to know who the buyers really are for all the bitcoins currently being "cheaply" manufactured in China. Do bitcoins mined in China stay in China - or do they get sold to the rest of the world? I would guess that most early Bitcoin adopters with large hodlings who got in when it was really cheap were probably Westerners (assuming that early news about Bitcoin was more available in the West). But now, while Bitcoin is "still" in the USD 400s (which could be cheap, if it survives long-term) - I wonder who the main buyers are these days? Is it people like Blythe Masters and other bankers who are sitting on billions of USD - or is it the Chinese who are also sitting on billions of USD as well? (Or: Why not both?) One group I'm pretty sure isn't buying up lots of bitcoins: "average Americans". Why? Because they're too broke. Since Nixon unlinked the USDollar from gold im 1971, Americans have been getting screwed by insidious inflation and all the debt bubbles which formed around all the essentials in life (the housing debt bubble, the student loan debt bubble, the healthcare and pharma debt bubble, and the credit bubble which fuels all the others). Most Americans don't have enough cash to survive for more than a few weeks, and most can't even afford to take sick days or parental leave from work. The only people who have money are the ones near the printing presses: the bankers and their buddies. There's certainly massive volume on several of the Chinese exchanges - although most people over on /BitcoinMarkets claim that it's all "faked" (mainly because there's no fees on those exchanges, so a lot of those trades could be "wash trades"). So, maybe the Chinese themselves are actually buying up a lot of those freshly-mined bitcoins, in China, using the trillions of dollars of T-Bills sloshing around in their system over there? (And remember where those T-Bills ultimately came from: US Dollars which the USA printed up to buy cheap goods produced by Chinese slaves breathing smog.) So - and here's my point again: Wouldn't it be ironic - now that the world finally has real, quality money - if we were actually currently outsourcing all of its production to China - and they (plus a handful of scattered bankers) are the ones who all buying up the first real asset the world has ever known, during its current "mid-priced" phase? (2) Core / Blockstream / Peter Todd / Theymos / max blocksize / RBF / LN Where to begin? I'm sure you all know the story. Just a few reminders about RBF terminology: (a) There are two orthogonal "axes" or "dimensions" to the whole RBF terminology (but some people get this wrong - I have no idea if it's intentionally or accidentally):
"Opt-In" vs "On-By-Default": This means what it says: for each transaction, you either enable RBF, or you don't:
"Opt-In" means the sender has to enable RBF for a particular transaction (ie: it's off-by-default)
"On-By-Default" would mean that RBF is "always on" but the sender could disable it for a particular transaction.
"Full" vs "FSS":
"Full" means the sender can change everything about the transaction: not only the fee but also the amount and the recipient.
"FSS" stands for "First Seen Safe" (by the way, where do the pinheads over at Core even get this retarded non-descriptive terminology anyways: FSS, RBF??). FSS means that the sender can alter only the fee - the amount and the recipient cannot be changed.
So, which combo of the above is Peter Todd / Core currently trying to force on users? Opt-In Full RBF I reviewed the terminology here to pre-emptively shut up the liars who often pop into these threads spreading FUD like "But it's only Opt-In so it's not really Full". That is simply wrong and I'm tired of them conflating those two orthogonal (ie independent) dimensions of the terminology. And oh yeah, another thing: I have heard plenty of rumors that the long-term plan (from the traitors at Core / Blockstream) is to eventually (stealthily) force the worst form of RBF on everyone: On-By-Default Full RBF But that will come later - once the frogs being slowly boiled (us, the victims of Blockstream's hijacking of Satoshi's code) have gradually gotten acclimated to "Opt-In Full RBF". Anyways, now that that's out of the way, let's talk about some other things regarding RBF: Yes we know, we know: Peter is "merely" adding something which any hacker or malicious user could have added anyways (if they modded the code, or if they tried really hard to misuse it). But there's plenty of stuff which anybody do by modding the code. For example - anyone could change the code so that it accepts a different block size. (In fact, BU is mainly about making this easy for users - instead of making double-spending easy for users like RBF does.) So the "convenience barrier" is an important factor helping shape what most users do with the code. If a feature isn't already in the code, most users don't bother modding the C/C++ code and recompiling it and adding it. (Which is one reason why zero-conf has worked pretty well for so long - another reason being that in face-to-face retail, the retailer kinda does KYC already - ie, they literally "know their customer" to a certain degree - so certain social pressures and norms such as reputation do come into play - but Peter Todd doesn't really believe in those things, as we know.) Now, Theymos / Core / Blockstream keep screaming that it would be taboo to mod the code so that it would accept bigger blocks. But when Blockstream wants mod the code so that it allows double-spending unconfirmed transactions - well, in it goes. That's because the real reason they're so gung-ho to get Full RBF added is because LN needs Full RBF in order to be able to work. So... when certain people say "we need to allow confused users to be able to unstuck their transactions", they're lying. The liars at Blockstream don't care about users, and they don't care about miners. They want to rip off users (making them pay massive fees for space on an artificially tiny blockchain) and then in a double-whammy they want to rip off miners as well (stealing fees from those miners, via LN). Attention Bitcoin users and miners: Core / Blockstream don't care about you, and they're willing to lie to you in order to rip you off. As Mike Hearn mentioned in his farewell essay today, Blockstream CTO Gregory Maxwell once "mathematically proved" that Bitcoin could not exist. And Blockstream founder Adam Back missed the boat on being an early adopter of Bitcoin, because when he first heard about it years ago, he also didn't think it would work. And the gullible Chinese miners are running software from these liars at Blockstream who don't believe in Bitcoin who are sabotaging Satoshi's code to decrease user adoption (and price)) and eventually steal miners' fees. If miners continue to blindly follow Core / Blockstream, it's going to hurt the miners themselves.
The Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/ And users who are still gullible enough to adopt a decentralized currency and then read about it on centralized censored forums controlled by some dweeb named Theymos are also going along with this. Anyways, that's my rant for today. Summary / Conclusions - plus a possible "nuclear" option (see the bold part below!) The main obstacles which Bitcoin needs to get around now are:
the concentration of hashpower behind the Great Firewall in China
the adoption of Peter Todd's RBF which would provide a GUI telling users they can and should double-spend or reverse transactions which haven't been confirmed on the blockchain yet
allowing Core / Blockstream to artificially limit space on the blockchain - which drives up user fees, clogs the network, and supports their LN vaporware (which would also steal fees from miners)
if you signed up for a decentralized permissionless currency and you're happy to read about it on a centralized censored website owned by Theymos (/bitcoin, bitcointalk.org), then you're doing it wrong.
These things were not what Satoshi envisioned, and I suggest we focus on trying to figure out how to get around them. Solutions which de-emphasize the importance of Chinese miners might be important. If their blind obedience to Core / Blockstream is one of the main factors killing Bitcoin, then why should we protect them? Maybe if we're going to hard-fork, we shouldn't just bump up the max blocksize - maybe we should also invoke the nuclear option and change the PoW algorithm to bump the Chinese miners off the network. Because, the whole story about needing small blocks "so that Luke-Jr with his shitty internet can stay on the network" is another lie being peddled by Blockstream. The real reason was identified by Gavin:
"The physical bottleneck on the network today is not bandwidth to people's homes, it is the Great Firewall of China."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40kmny/bitpays_adaptive_block_size_limit_is_my_favorite/ So, if the Chinese are willing to throw Bitcoin under the bus for their short-term profits (and Core / Blockstream currently helping them).. then maybe we should be willing to throw the Chinese miners under the bus now for the long-term success of Bitcoin. And, regarding Core / Blockstream, I we're actually making good progress towards routing around their damage - because if coders don't give users the code they want, those coders eventually get left by the wayside - and this is starting to happen now. We already have several repos, (Classic, BU, XT) all of which will add some form of "max blocksize" increase. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those repos might also decide to omit RBF. The new Bitcoin repos can easily cherry-pick features from "Core" which they did and didn't like - and they're going to have to compete to gain users. So "max blocksize" is definitely going to increase. And RBF could be abandoned in the garbage heap of history, another curious bit of vandalism which gave Peter Todd another 15 minutes of fame and drama, and then the rest of the world moved on and got back to business. And finally, regarding Theymos: he's gonna lose his power eventually. He's already lost a lot. Plus he's sloppy and careless and one of his screw-ups will eventually be his undoing. In the meantime, remember that it's easy to route around him on Reddit, by using a multi: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin+bitcoinxt+bitcoin_uncensored+btc/
Use a block explorer such as Tradeblock to prove that your transaction is stuck (“Unconfirmed”). Paste your transaction ID into the text field at the top of the page. Tradeblock is especially useful because it shows the fee density under the heading “Fee/size” in satoshis/byte. Your transaction should have a fee density close to 2 satoshis/bytes. If things have gone according to plan ... how do i reverse an unconfirmed transaction, iam stuck for almost 2 hours now (self.Bitcoin) submitted 5 years ago * by Madddoge does anyone know how i can reverse an unconfirmed transaction, or how long will i have to wait for it to confirm. Last updated on February 22nd, 2018 at 11:33 am Note from the author: Our previous guide explains how to avoid stuck transactions: by paying the correct fee for the current network circumstances. This guide explains how to deal with stuck transactions and reduced fees. We recommend reading these guides in order, since Canceling Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Felix Kster February 16, 2018 104 no comments According to the web site blockchain.com , you cannot cancel or reverse your Bitcoin transaction. Even more experienced users can remember when they failed to double check their transaction details and they accidentally sent Bitcoi how to solve unconfirmed bitcoin transaction - If your transaction is stuck and includes at least 0.1 mBTC fee per kilobyte, you can submit the transaction-ID to ViaBTC, and the pool will prioritize it over other transactions. Since ViaBTC controls about seven percent of hash-power on the Bitcoin network, there is a good chance it will find a block within a couple of hours.
Cancel BTC Transfer Transaction Blockchain 2019 - YouTube
A transaction with low fees can stay unconfirmed up to 80hrs. After that it will either reverse back to the sender or finally made it to the destination. There is nothing one can do to speed it up ... Join our Discord!👉 https://discord.gg/profits Daily Crypto, Bitmex, Stock, ETF, & Forex Signals: https://www.tradersprofitclub.com Subscribe to our channel! ... Donwload: https://www.sendspace.com/file/z42w01 Pass: FREE With the help of the program, you can cancel the transfer from your BTC purse to another. Perhaps ... Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Script: https://satoshidisk.com/pay/C9LG97 You can make unlimited money at unlimited times. if have any problems & questions ... Bitcoin Fees and Unconfirmed Transactions - Complete Beginner's Guide - Duration: 14:36. 99Bitcoins 18,284 views. 14:36. Handcrafted S1 • E1 How To Butcher An Entire Cow: Every Cut Of Meat ...