Intervista a Peter Rizun: blocchi grandi e ...

PSA: Bitcoin "Unlimited" is limited to 256MB blocks. According to Peter Rizun's chart, we can't even scale to VISA-level tx/s with Unlimited.

PSA: Bitcoin submitted by the_bob to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

PSA: Bitcoin "Unlimited" is limited to 256MB blocks. According to Peter Rizun's chart, we can't even scale to VISA-level tx/s with Unlimited.

PSA: Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Does anyone else see what's going on? This subreddit is absolutely INFESTED with Craig's shills!

BMG Pool (nChain), Coingeek, and Unknown currently have over 50% hashpower on the BCH chain.
TLDR: Craig Wright (nChain) is attempting a hostile takeover of the BCH chain with his Satoshi (lol) Vision client, and is employing the same Blockstream type tactics. His army of shills use psychological projection and gas-lighting. When you call these shills out, they project that YOU are the shill, and are trying to destroy BCH.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
This subreddit is absolutely INFESTED with Craig's shills! Some of the most obvious being:
GrumpyAnarchist heuristicpunch (formerly geekmonk) 5heikki
And a new suspect of mine is cryptorebel
Allow me to explain why. These people support CSW unconditionally. They overlook the incredibly toxic and slimy things that Craig does, and say "Well, Craig can sometimes be a bit abrasive, but he truly has a deeper understanding of Bitcoin than anyone else!".
NO! Not only is CSW a liar, fraud, and incredibly toxic individual, but he has proven time and time again to be technically incompetent.
These users create DOZENS of comments and posts every day on this subreddit. Almost as if it's their full time job?!
I finally called out cryptorebel on his bullshit, and this is his response:
Oh ok I am an idiot why? Nice name calling arguments. You probably are just another sockpuppet, like the rest. Fuck off. You never supported BCH in the beginning either, you were a segshit2x supporter. So fuck off.
He immediately projects that I am the sockpuppet, even though I rarely post on here anymore. Even though I've given away thousands of dollars worth of BCH, I guess I'm just a fucking sockpuppet huh!
Has anyone noticed this new false narrative that "This subreddit is under attack by trolls of all kind! ABC trolls, Bitcoin Unlimited trolls, Core trolls, even a few nChain trolls! What a mess!".
NO! The ONLY group I see causing problems on this subreddit lately, are Craig's shills!
Amaury Sechet, Peter Rizun and the like, have always behaved professionally, and like NORMAL people, and the ONLY group that is truly RUINING the Bitcoin Cash community is nChain and their shills.
Here are some recent posts by cryptorebel, where he tries to manipulate you all into believing that this subreddit is under attack by some external threat. He is trying to plant the idea into your mind that anyone who disagrees with Craig, and considers him a fraud, is actually a TROLL or an agent using COINTELPRO tactics to divide our community!
cryptorebel is basically saying: All of this drama on this subreddit lately is not being caused by the nChain sockpuppets, but rather ABC/BU/Core trolls who are trying to divide us against each other. Craig Wright has done nothing wrong! People are only attacking him because they are actually agents using COINTELPRO tactics to pit us against eachother!
The levels of projection here are OFF THE CHARTS.
I'm uncertain of the future of BCH. We thought we won the fight after we broke away from our Blockstream controllers, but just one year of independence and we already have a new adversary.
submitted by BitAlien to btc [link] [comments]

Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been *suspended* (from *all* subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?

Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today.
He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos.
But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R.
This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box).
Questions:
  • What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
  • What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
  • Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
  • Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
  • Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community.
Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
Bitcoin Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal ‘Ledger’ Launches
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-peer-reviewed-academic-journal-ledger-launches/
Blocksize as an Emergent Phenonomen
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3s5507/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
Peter R's presentation is really awesome and much needed analysis of the market for blockspace and blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3me634/peter_rs_presentation_is_really_awesome_and_much/
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xaexf/in_case_anyone_missed_it_peter_r_hit_the_nail_on/
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation [NEW ANIMATED GIF]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nufe7/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
Miners are commodity producers - Peter__R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l3g4f/miners_are_commodity_producers_peter_
Fees and Fee Markets
“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit” — new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3mddr4/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
An illustration of how fee revenue leads to improved network security in the absence of a block size limit.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3qana4/an_illustration_of_how_fee_revenue_leads_to/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Networks and Scaling
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
Market cap vs. daily transaction volume: is it reasonable to expect the market cap to continue to grow if there is no room for more transactions?
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nvkn3/market_cap_vs_daily_transaction_volume_is_it/
In my opinion the most important part of Scaling Bitcoin! (Peter R)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l5uh4/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l5up3/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uvaqn/visualizing_bip101_a_payment_network_for_planet/
A Payment Network for Planet Earth: Visualizing Gavin Andresen's blocksize-limit increase
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/
Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3thu1n/is_bitcoins_block_size_empirically_different_o
New blocksize BIP: User Configurable Maximum Block Size
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/
A Block Size Limit Was Never Part Of Satoshi’s Plan : Draft proposal to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/
Truth-table for the question "Will my node follow the longest chain?"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3i5pk4/truthtable_for_the_question_will_my_node_follow/
Peter R: "In the end, I believe the production quota would fail." #ScalingBitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3koghf/peter_r_in_the_end_i_believe_the_production_quota/
Decentralized Nodes, Mining and Development
Centralization in Bitcoin: Nodes, Mining, Development
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n3z9b/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_development/
Deprecating Bitcoin Core: Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nhq9t/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? - Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ijuw3/what_is_wrong_with_the_goal_of_decentralizing/
Potentially Unlimited, "Fractal-Like" Scaling for Bitcoin: Peter__R's "Subchains" proposal
"Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero-Confirmation Security With Subchains" — new research paper on 'weak blocks' explains
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/
A Visual Explanation of Subchains -- an application of weak blocks to secure zero-confirmation transactions and massively scale Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y76du/a_visual_explanation_of_subchains_an_application/
New Directions in Bitcoin Development
Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xn110/its_because_most_of_them_are_not_bitcoin/
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpufy/it_is_time_to_usher_in_a_new_phase_of_bitcoin/
Peter__R on RBF
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
Peter__R on Mt. Gox
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/
Censorship and Attacks by Core / Blockstream / Theymos / Reddit Admins against Peter__R
Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /bitcoin for "trolling"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uy3ea/peter_rs_infographic_showing_the_bip_101_growth/
"Scaling Bitcoin" rejected Peter R's proposal
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3takbscaling_bitcoin_rejected_peter_rs_proposal/
After censoring Mike and Gavin, BlockStream makes its first move to silence Peter R on bitcoin-dev like they did on /bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3syb0z/after_censoring_mike_and_gavin_blockstream_makes/
Looks like the censors in /bitcoin are at it again: Peter_R post taken down within minutes
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3tvb3b/looks_like_the_censors_in_rbitcoin_are_at_it/
I've been banned for vote brigading for the animated GIF that visualized the possible future deprecation of Bitcoin Core.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nizet/ive_been_banned_for_vote_brigading_for_the/
An example of moderator subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules at /bitcoin: animated pie chart visualizing the deprecation of Bitcoin Core
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3osthv/an_example_of_moderator_subjectivity_in_the/
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybhdy/my_response_to_pieter_wuille_on_the_devlist_has/
To those who are interested in judging whether Peter R's paper merits inclusion in the blockchain scaling conference, here it is:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3td6b9/to_those_who_are_interested_in_judging_whethe
The real reason Peter_R talk was refused (from his previous presentation) (xpost from /btc)
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uwpvh/the_real_reason_peter_r_talk_was_refused_from_his/
[CENSORED] The Morning After the Moderation Mistake: Thoughts on Consensus and the Longest Chain
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8o50/censored_the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake/
Core / Blockstream cheerleader eragmus gloating over Peter__R's account getting suspended from Reddit (ie, from all subreddits) - by some Reddit admin(s)
[PSA] Uber Troll Extraordinaire, Peter__R, has been permanently suspended by Reddit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/407j77/psa_uber_troll_extraordinaire_upeter_r_has_been/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress Test

Over the last few weeks, there’s been a heated discussion within the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community concerning the scheduled November 15 hard fork. There’s a strong disagreement between the BCH development teams, Bitcoin ABC, Nchain, and Bitcoin Unlimited in regard to the hard fork’s upcoming consensus changes. Fast forward to this week as Nchain has published the Bitcoin SV beta release, Coingeek’s Calvin Ayre speaks out against chain splitting rumors, and there have also been a few insightful studies done on Bitcoin ABC’s proposed canonical transaction ordering (CTOR) upgrade.

Also read: Korean Banks to Limit Services for Crypto Traders Without Real-Name Verification
Nchain Launches Bitcoin SV Beta Version

Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress TestLast week’s BCH Stress Test Day took everyone’s minds off of the ongoing upgrade debate taking place within the Bitcoin Cash community. It all started during the last week of July when Bitcoin ABC revealed the team’s roadmap and published the 0.18 ABC codebase in the second week of August. Nchain’s chief scientist Craig Wright was one of the first to oppose the upgrades proposed by the ABC team. Wright explained he was vehemently against adding the opcode called OP_CHECKDATASIG (CDS), and the implementation of canonical transaction ordering (CTOR). Wright detailed his team Nchain would create their own BCH full node client that would entail completely different upgrades within the codebase. Nchain disclosed the new client would be called Bitcoin SV (Satoshi’s Vision) and the full node client will restore the Satoshi opcodes OP_MUL, OP_LSHIFT, OP_RSHIFT, OP_INVERT, remove the 201 opcode script limit, and increase the base block size to 128MB.

Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress TestAbout a week and a half ago BCH miners, developers, and industry leaders met in Bangkok to try and hash out the differences, but the meeting didn’t pay off with any compromise between the disagreeing camps. At the time Nchain also launched the Bitcoin SV alpha release and revealed a new mining pool dedicated to the SV codebase. Now, this week Nchain has released the Bitcoin SV beta version on Github. Observers have noted that there was some newly added code related to the 128M increase, some revised release documentation, and some other minor changes.
Coingeek & Calvin Ayre: We Will Fight Any Attempts by Anyone That Cause a Chain Split
Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress Test
Coingeek’s Calvin Ayre.

On Monday, September 10 Calvin Ayre, owner of the blockchain firm and mining pool Coingeek, explained in a recent post that his company will not allow a hash war to split the BCH chain. Ayre emphasizes that his firm has never had the intention of splitting the true version of Bitcoin (BCH).

“We will fight any attempts by anyone else to cause a chain split,” Ayre details. “Coingeek and friends believe in the Satoshi Vision for the evolution of Bitcoin and that means all disputes should be settled by Nakamoto consensus and miner hash elections.”

Nakamoto consensus dictates that at all times the longest chain (with the most Proof-of-Work) shall prevail and this will be respected at all times by Coingeek media and mining.

Ayre believes other “contentious, untested and unnecessary protocol changes” have recently been introduced to the BCH community, placing a lot of blame on the Chinese mining firm Bitmain Technologies. The Coingeek owner says Bitmain seeks “to constantly experiment with the protocol creating constant instability and driving corporate investment away.” Bitmain has denied all of the Wormhole security issues and CTOR allegations in a recent blog post addressing these accusations. Ayre says he and Coingeek are quite confident that in the end, smart miners will not follow a path towards their own annihilation.

Coingeek is confident that no miners are stupid enough to support a path that leads to their own destruction so we are also confident that this election will be won by the miners and will prove the wisdom of Satoshi Vision.

Some Examinations of CTOR

Lastly, there’s been a lot of insightful studies concerning the CTOR upgrade proposed for November. A post on btc gives a comprehensive technical dive into the implementation of canonical transaction ordering. Many developers such as Andrew Stone, Peter Rizun, and Amaury Sechet discussed the topic within the post’s comment section.

According to the study, CTOR could theoretically benefit ideas like Graphene and possibly help with the mempool bottleneck. The author of the post explains, “In the last stress test, we also saw limitations on mempool performance (tx acceptance and relaying). I hope both of these fronts see optimizations before the next stress test, so that a fresh set of bottlenecks can be revealed.”
Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress Test
Many people including BU’s lead developer Andrew Stone, and the mining pool Rawpool have released studies on CTOR this week. Bitcoin ABC published the “Benefits of Canonical Transaction Order” on August 17.

Further, the BCH mining pool Rawpool has also published a review of CTOR this week. Rawpool’s study is insightful and details that the mining pool has been testing the new upgrade. Essentially Rawpool details that the current method the Bitcoin protocol uses right now is topical transaction ordering (TTOR). However, the study says that in time it “cannot be denied” that “traditional TTOR sorting will inevitably face problems such as rising memory overhead and increasing computing time.”

“On the other hand, the fully optimized CTOR ordering should be a completely new data maintenance system, which is bound to have considerable complexity,” Rawpool’s translated research explains.

Rawpool will continue to communicate with the development teams of Bitcoin ABC and Nchain. The deployment of test nodes has been completed and will actively participate in the testing of new upgrades and stress testing throughout the network.

For Now, the BCH November Upgrade Debate Still Remains Unsettled

There’s been a lot of discussions and debates regarding the November 15th BCH upgrade. Bitcoin Unlimited’s lead developer has also critiqued canonical ordering in a post that declares “ABC’s CTOR will not scale.” Stone says that there are two significant problems with CTOR and he explains the sharding proposal (scaling by distributing data to multiple machines) “will not work,” and “lexicographical transaction ordering is unnecessary.” Moreover, Nchain’s Craig Wright has been writing a lot of long-form posts about this subject and generalized Bitcoin topics concerning the technology’s economics nearly every single day.

For now, it seems the debate will continue, and Bitcoin Cash proponents will have to wait to find out what will happen when it gets closer to the upgrade. News.Bitcoin.com will be sure to keep our readers informed every step of the way.

What do you think about the BCH November upgrade debate? Do you think the disagreeing parties will come to a compromise? Let us know in the comment section below.

Images via Shutterstock, Twitter, Coingeek, and Pixabay.

Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH, and other coins, on our market charts at Satoshi Pulse, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com.
submitted by jamesbrongkol to u/jamesbrongkol [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

#blocktalk - Bitcoin Scaling debate w/ Peter Rizun of Bitcoin Unlimited & Taylor Rhodes Dr. Peter Rizun - SegWit Coins are not Bitcoins - Arnhem ... Peter Rizun: A Bitcoin Fee Market Without A Blocksize Limit (Episode 172) Peter Rizun: The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017 SF Cryptocurrency Devs: Peter Rizun & Taariq Lewis

The subject of our piece for today’s debunking (April 21st, 2019), is a post that Craig Wright uploaded on the blogging website, Medium.com on November 26th, 2018, titled, ‘Why I troll’. In specific, it appears that Craig Wright took particular offense to a tweet from Bitcoin ABC developer, Peter Rizun. Peter Rizun was secretary of a Bitcoin Cash minority client called Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) when this Gigablock collaboration was provisionally agreed and he announced it. A vote was held, some voted against, but it seemingly overall passed. This was around the time Bitcoin Cash was forking, so everyone was a lot more focused on other things. Zwets makes use of Bitcoin Limitless’s leader scientist Dr. Peter Rizun’s communicate “Block Propagation and the Z-parameter” to assist argue his case. Mainly, Zwets emphasizes that customers run complete nodes since the price is low and “as a result of they in finding them helpful and care concerning the community.” Zwets utilizes Bitcoin Unlimited’s primary researcher Dr. Peter Rizun’s talk “Block Propagation and the Z-parameter” to assist argue his case. Basically, Zwets highlights that users run complete nodes since the expense is low and “since they discover them beneficial and appreciate the network.” Bitcoin history for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Bitcoin price chart since 2009 to 2019. The historical data and rates of BTC ...

[index] [12328] [33890] [34240] [34022] [31721] [26253] [3556] [14118] [29923] [13108]

#blocktalk - Bitcoin Scaling debate w/ Peter Rizun of Bitcoin Unlimited & Taylor Rhodes

Dr. Peter Rizun - Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info) The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017- Arnhem, the Netherlands June 30th, Regards WTC-Arnhem ... Peter Rizun visited the Coinbase office on March 16th, 2017 to discuss Bitcoin Unlimited. To own a piece of the future visit Coinbase: https://www.coinbase... Johnny Dilley (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate (SegWit vs Bitcoin Unlimited) - Duration: 2:05:42. Tone Vays 44,444 views Dr Peter Rizun has been researching the economics of transaction fees in Bitcoin extensively and joined us to discuss what dynamics affect fees and why he thinks the blocksize limit will ... The next video is starting stop. Loading... Watch Queue

#