Luke-Jr -

"If BIP148 were to fail, the alternative would result in Litecoin taking a lead over Bitcoin."- luke-jr (Bitcoin Core Developer)
submitted by ChronicBurnout3 to litecoin [link] [comments]

Luke-jr (Bitcoin Core developer) on Slavery

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"If BIP148 were to fail, the alternative would result in Litecoin taking a lead over Bitcoin." - luke-jr (Bitcoin Core Developer)
Luke Jr just talking smack? Doesn't think ETH is poised as well? Is this just contributing to the FUD, adding noise to the signal, making a joke, or do you think he was actually being serious? I don't know that much about Luke Jr., but the little I do suggests he's no Jerry Seinfeld.
submitted by ChronicBurnout3 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
I don't think we can survive forever without a HF. What about when/if QC [Quantum Computing] becomes a reality, for example?
~ u/Luke-Jr
So... the only scenario where Luke-Jr can imagine upgrading Bitcoin is in the event of Quantum Computing?!?!?
Luke-Jr has been very damaging and toxic to Bitcoin in several ways:
(1) Luke-Jr's pathological, anti-science insistence on extremely tiny blocks is largely responsible for Circle shutting down Bitcoin trading today. CEO Jeremy Allaire: "bitcoin hasn’t evolved quickly enough to support everyday financial activities." ( ceases allowing purchase of Bitcoin)
Bitcoin Powerhouse [Circle] Will Pull the Plug on Bitcoin
New Ventures of Old Bitcoin: Circle phasing out buying/selling bitcoin...
(2) Luke-Jr's proposal to do SegWit as an "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork is needlessly overcomplicating Bitcoin's codebase and potentially exposing you to new attack vectors which could _steal your bicoins.
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
SegWit false start attack allows a minority of miners to steal bitcoins from SegWit transactions
Luke-Jr may believe that he genuinely wants to help Bitcoin - but he is only hurting Bitcoin.
As we all know by now, Luke-Jr suffers from numerous physiological and/or psychological pathologies. We cannot continue brush these problems under the rug as being "just his religious freedom".
Luke-Jr's cognitive problems make him incapable of fulling participating in human society - or debating about capacity planning for an emerging global cryptocurrency economy.
In his faith-based, anti-science brain, the only situation where he can imagine hard-forking Bitcoin is in the advent of Quantum Computing (QC) - making him largely responsible for Circle shutting down Bitcoin trading today, due to insufficient capacity on the blockchain - directly attributable to Luke-Jr's well-known efforts to artificially suppress the blocksize and prevent Bitcoin from upgrading via a simple & safe hard-fork.
For all his supposed "piety", Luke-Jr is actually just a blissfully ignorant sociopath and an extremist who is incapable of dealing with life in real-world societies and economies.
He has been very, very harmful to the Bitcoin community, the Bitcoin codebase, and the Bitcoin economy.
Luke-Jr simply does not recognize reality. He lives in his own pathological world where he regularly spouts criminal, anti-social fantasies:
Luke-Jr is a seriously a super crazy person quotes gigathread
Luke-Jr: "The only religion people have a right to practice is Catholicism. Other religions should not exist. Nobody has any right to practice false religions. Martin Luther was a servant of Satan. He ought to have been put to death. Slavery is not immoral. Sodomy should be punishable by death."
Below are more actual quotes illustrating how Luke-Jr's faith-based, anti-science, anti-social brain works:
Now, Circle - a company that the WSJ calls a "Bitcoin powerhouse" - is shutting down Bitcoin trading - and a lot of this is Luke-Jr's fault:
Like the faith-based viewpoints of many harmful US politicians, the faith-based viewpoints of Luke-Jr are delusional, anti-scientific and dangerous to our society and to our economy.
And we are getting yet another very concrete example of this today - where Luke-Jr is largely to blame for causing a major US Bitcoin trading company, Circle, to shut down Bitcoin trading.
Luke is blind to reality
Like any faith-based sociopath, Luke-Jr lacks the mental and emotional faculties to see any of the damage which he is causing.
This is why he keeps on piously mouthing his toxic, blissful ignorance - because he puts his "faith" over science, and fantasy over facts - and himself over the community.
Luke-Jr is also responsible for doing SegWit as a shitty, sucky spaghetti-code soft fork
Luke's "contributions" to Bitcoin have needlessly complicated Bitcoin's codebase - preventing Bitcoin's growth, driving away users and businesses, and dividing the community.
jimmydorry about luke-jr : 'His best work was probably in figuring out how to soft-fork SegWit, and I'm sure that I am forgetting a whole heap of other things he did that were important.'
Why do people continue to listen to this toxic sociopath Luke-Jr?
Why are people letting this toxic sociopath Luke-Jr do capacity planning and upgrade planning for the world's most important cryptocurrency, Bitcoin?
Maybe people contiunue to pay attention to him because he was an early adopter of Bitcoin.
And Blockstream likes him, because he functions as "useful idiot" and attack dog for them: his irrational opposition to hard forks helps keep Blockstream in power.
But, in reality, Luke-Jr has proven again and again that he is merely an extremist and a sociopath. He may help Blockstream - but he hurts Bitcoin.
It is time for the Bitcoin community to recognize that Luke-Jr is dangerous and damaging to Bitcoin.
In a universe without Luke-Jr's toxic influence...
Think about that better world we could be in right now - if we hadn't let our community be damaged by the dangerous and pathological lies and insanity coming from the toxic extremist sociopath Luke-Jr.
Bitcoin will not be able to survive and prosper if we continue to allow the toxic extremist sociopath Luke-Jr to poison our codebase, our community, and our economy.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

This is how you manipulate/force people into Lightning and off-chain. No words.

4n4n4n: "Mycelium is suggesting a $2.43 transaction fee to me for 1-block confirmation versus $0.10 for a 3-block confirmation"
luke-jr: "If you want to get mined in the very next block, you need to pay a fee that all miners will accept. That means it only takes one small miner to require a high fee, to bump up the fee needed to ensure this. When you target the next 3 blocks, your wallet knows it can ignore up to 66% of the highest-fee-required miners."
rebildtv: "What made Bitcoin powerful to me is microtransactions, if Bitcoin transactions cost more than 20 cents, I dont see the point in it."
luke-jr: "Bitcoin was never designed for microtransactions, but Lightning may change that soon."
rebildtv: "Didnt Bitcoin used to have a transaction fee that was around 4 cents? What changed since then and why is the fee so much"
luke-jr: "It used to not have any fee. What changed is demand and spam volume. People can only subsidise so much."
Correction, Luke: You guys changed it so it couldn't handle "microtransactions" anymore, by refusing to increase the block size.
submitted by olivierjanss to btc [link] [comments]

Luke-Jr is a seriously a super crazy person quotes gigathread.

Feel free to add your own, there is just so many. in no particular order:
slavery is still moral (unless prohibited by law, in which case it's the sin of disobedience).
If the intent is to simply prevent conception, even abstinence can be sinful within marriage.
Masturbation, or any sexual pleasure not ordered toward procreation, is always a grave sin
if you argue that God is allowing the sin, so we shouldn't stop it: consider that it may very well also be God's will that we intervene. Perhaps He is allowing the attempted rape/murder to take place specifically to give you the opportunity to stop it.
The fact that the liberal mass media has deceived the secularists into thinking Francis is the pope of that Church is another matter
As a general principle, it is moral for the State to execute criminals with due process, including heretics.
Logical impossibility. Marriage is by definition a relationship for reproduction, but gay relationships simply cannot do that.
By the way, the Sun really orbits the Earth, not vice-versa.
[he also has been posting in the geocentrism reddit but then deleting his posts: ]
I am not aware of any evidence that /Bitcoin engages in censorship.
04:25 luke-jr Bitcoin can very easily be banned.
04:26 luke-jr cjdelisle: if a law passes banning it, it is wrong
04:26 luke-jr nobody has a right to Bitcoin .
04:27 cjdelisle I know right from wrong and I don't need to consult the words of corrupt politicians and lawyers.
04:27 justmoon luke-jr: there are legal rights and natural rights. free speech is a natural right, so by that standard using bitcoin can never be morally wrong.
04:27 luke-jr "free speech" is not a right at all
04:28 luke-jr cjdelisle: disobedience is wrong .
04:28 cjdelisle luke-jr: how do you know?
04:28 luke-jr cjdelisle: the same way anyone can know morality: the Church teaches it .
04:29 lfm disobedience is absolutly required sometimes
04:30 luke-jr lfm: not the sin of disobedience, no.
04:30 midnightmagic civil disobedience is the duty of every citizen who lives under an unjust law
04:30 luke-jr midnightmagic: all laws are just by default
04:30 luke-jr an unjust law is one which contradicts a higher law.
04:30 luke-jr which banning Bitcoin does not.
04:30 midnightmagic the syrian people would disagree with you
04:31 luke-jr then they are wrong

the State does have the authority, and in some cases the duty, to execute heretics.
05:22 luke-jr lfm: protestantism is heresy
05:19 luke-jr it is legitimate to punish by death, someone who openly declares the popes to not be infallible on matters of faith and morals
Also a shady thing I didn't really remember he did:
Since Coiledcoin launched with merged mining, Luke Jr was able to use Eligius' combined hashing power to execute a 51% attack against the new block chain. Additionally, the Eligius-mined blocks contained no transactions, effectively slowing the function of the Coiledcoin network to a crawl.
Miners on Eligius suffered no monetary loss since merged mining does not affect the hashing power on the primary network and this is an excellent example of a pool operator performing merged mining without the consent of the miners.
Eligius miners were not consulted prior to the attack and it's been stated publicly by at least a few major players in Eligius' network that they do not approve of the attack. Eligius states that his major motivation was to prevent the damage caused by the pump-and-dump schemes that most of the alternate currencies typically represent - a large number of coins premined or mined by early adopters which get sold off rapidly, collapsing the altcoin's new economy and effectively destroying the project. He incorrectly referred to them as "pyramid schemes" though, in at least a few cases, he is probably correct as identifying some altcoins as "schemes" or "scams."
Even some miners (myself included) who agree with Luke Jr's assessment of the altcoin pump-and-dump scenarios disapprove of Eligius' actions since the attack happened without the consent of those actually responsible for it, even when such consent would likely have been given. There is, simply put, a great deal of resentment about not being asked or given any option.
That said, the effect seems to have been felt quite little by Eligius regardless of public opinion surrounding the fallout. At the time of the incident, Eligius was reporting combined hashrates of ~250GH/s and today is reporting hashrates upward of 440GH/s. However much this may have hurt public opinion, it certainly hasn't hurt business.
There is just infinitely more. Feel free to continue where I'm leaving off. Does the bitcoin community realize how literally crazy this guy is?
submitted by Hodldown to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

By request: How to signal UASF, a guide for dummies

Request source


There are two methods of 'signaling UASF'.
  1. Add a uacomment to your bitcoin.conf file / launch arguments
  2. Run a UASF enforcing fork of bitcoin core software.
Option 1 is the equivilant to the guy that says "Yea! I love that Hillary gal. She's got bitchin tits!" and then doesn't go to vote come election day. Option 2 is the person who goes to vote on election day and casts a valid ballot for all elections valid that day. This guide assumes that you want to do option 2 because option 1 is more or less pointless.
It is worth noting, you will NOT need to re-download the blockchain when you switch from the Core client to the UASF client.
Also, I am going to assume the 'dummies' are all using Windows. If you'd like me to expand to linux as well, let me know...I just don't imagine there are many (any?) dummies on linux.


  1. Go to reference
  2. Download the correct version for your operating system (32-bit will work on 64-bit windows; 64-bit will NOT work on 32-bit windows. When in doubt, just get 32-bit. If you're on linux, you probably already know which 'bit' your OS is...if not...God help you.) I will assume you downloaded the file to C:\Users\\Downloads
  3. Click on the Start button
  4. type 'cmd' (no quotes)
  5. cd Downloads
  6. certUtil -hashfile bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-win32-setup-unsigned.exe SHA256
  7. Compare the output to this and this.
  8. If the hashes match, install the software. See (Hash verification explained) section below if you are unsure what/how to do that.
  9. Start your node. Congrats, so long as it is running, you are supporting UASF!
Obviously, if you go with the .zip version instead of the .exe, use the correct corresponding hash value in the file of hashes I linked to. Same if you use the 64-bit version instead of the 32bit version.

Hash verification explained

Since step 7 might be a bit confusing, here is what I got on my system:
C:\Users\Kingdud\Downloads>certUtil -hashfile bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-win32-setup-unsigned.exe SHA256 SHA256 hash of file bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-win32-setup-unsigned.exe: fc 28 b3 6f f7 51 09 f0 6e 3d 14 9f 45 2f da 21 3e c4 0c 37 83 d8 27 3a 6b ee b2 24 89 61 1c a9 CertUtil: -hashfile command completed successfully. 
Well, from the two links I know I should get:
*from luke-jr* fc28b36ff75109f06e3d149f452fda213ec40c3783d8273a6beeb22489611ca9 bitcoin-0.14.1-win32-setup-unsigned.exe *from laanwj* fc28b36ff75109f06e3d149f452fda213ec40c3783d8273a6beeb22489611ca9 bitcoin-0.14.1-win32-setup-unsigned.exe 
And, when you take out the spaces, what I actually got was:
The bit at the end (bitcoin-0.14.1-win32-setup-unsigned.exe) is just the filename to tell you which file that hash corresponds to, so the fact that I got the same hash as both luke-jr and laanwj got means I have a 'safe' build (one that is not corrupted/tampered with/otherwise 'wrong').

Final Words

It's that simple. Cheers.
submitted by Kingdud to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Analysis & graphs of block sizes

I made some useful graphs to help those taking a side in the block size debate make a more informed decision.
First, I only looked at blocks found after approximately 10 minutes, to avoid the time variance from influencing the result.
Then, I split the blocks into three categories (which you can make your own judgement on the relevance of):
The output of this analysis can be seen either here raw, or here with a 2-week rolling average to smooth it. Note the bottom has an adjustable slider to change the size of the graph you are viewing.
To reproduce these results:
  1. Clone my GitHub branch "measureblockchain": git clone -b measureblockchain git://
  2. Build it like Bitcoin Core is normally built.
  3. Run it instead of your normal Bitcoin Core node. Note it is based on 0.10, so all the usual upgrade/downgrade notes apply. Pipe stderr to a file, usually done by adding to the end of your command: 2>output.txt
  4. Wait for the node to sync, if it isn't already.
  5. Execute the measureblockchain RPC. This always returns 0, but does the analysis and writes to stderr. It takes like half an hour on my PC.
  6. Transform the output to the desired format. I used: perl -mPOSIX -ne 'm/\+),(\d+),(-?\d+)/g or die $_; next unless ($3 > 590 && $3 < 610); $t=$2; $t=POSIX::strftime "%m/%d/%Y %H:%M:%S", gmtime $t;print "$t";@a=();while(m/\G,(\d+),(\d+)/g){push @a,$1}print ",$a[1],$a[2],$a[0]";print "\n"' output-dygraphs.txt
  7. Paste the output from this into the Dygraphs Javascript code; this is pretty simple if you fork the one I used.
tl;dr: We're barely reaching 400k blocks today, and we could get by with 300k blocks if we had to.
submitted by luke-jr to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Planning Bitcoin LJR 0.12

I'd like to make Bitcoin LJR more of an open community project. But the name is presently a shorthand for my name, so it should probably be changed. I've been considering "Mattityahu Bitcoin" named after the patron saint of accountants, St. Matthew the Apostle (Mattityahu is the original Hebrew name). This also gets a nice icon by adding a halberd, which symbolises St. Matthew. But I haven't decided for sure yet, and I'm open to other ideas for a new name. (Let's avoid religious discussion on this thread; whatever your thoughts, it makes a good brand). Edit: Here's another great idea by the_Lagsy: Bitcoin Cords
Aside from the name change, what features would people like to see in the next version?
submitted by luke-jr to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

New Bitcoin "Golden Age" - Hard fork SegWit with Keccak PoW

The benefits of SegWit are vast, I was particularly excited about linear signature hashing which is IMO essential for larger blocksizes. If a super minority of miners blocks SegWit activation I see Litecoin (or another alt with a more ideologically homogeneous community) successfully implementing it while Bitcoin development is stalemated.
I believe Chinese mining dominance is not an artifact of fair competition in a free market, but rather government subsidies there and government regulations and taxation in the west.
If the miners are no longer an asset to the community, but rather become a liability; is it not wise to start laying the ground work for a PoW hard fork now in preparation for this failure mode?
I don't know how serious he was, but I remember Luke Jr previously wrote code for a hard fork to Keccak as the mining PoW algorithm. We can learn a lot from Ethereum's humerous hard fork mistakes. I think it would be good idea to have the code for a SegWit + Keccak hard fork written and tested; miners already mining on a test net ready to move over as well as GPU miners mining alt coins; wallet support; multiple exchanges ready to support the forked coin etc...
Yes mining would eventually re-centralize to the Central Kingdom, permanently solving mining centralization would not be the point of the exercise. Rather breathing room to give Bitcoin a new "Golden Age", the chance evolve one more step to self sustaining evolution rather than being strangled in the cradle.
submitted by kryptomancer to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[HOWTO] Verify the signed UASF released binaries

Yesterday, a pull request was made to the bitcoin core github repository, introducing code and a flag (-bip148) allowing one to run bitcoin core with BIP148 rules, essentially the same functionality as the current UASF-Segwit:0.3 client, but with a set-able flag that is off by default.
This is the second pull request of its kind, after the first failed to receive support (on by default and no option to set as off) and it seems like this one does fair better and might even be eventually merged and shipped at some point.
There are probably folks who would like to run the UASF client but are concerned about binaries from unknown sources, and who will possibly run the Core binary with the -bip148 flag if the software allowed. It's important to realize that in this case, such concerns are not justified, and that the UASF-Segwit:0.3 client is vetted and reviewed as much as Core software, and it's as safe to run as binary release of Core, if you already trust the same source and people who sign it.
Usually, when Core software is released, a file named SHA256SUM.asc is published as well as the maintainter's public key (in Core's case, it's Wladimir). The SHA256SUM.asc file contains hashes of packaged releases to various operating systems, and a signature signing those hashes, certifying that if you have a file who's hash matches the one mentioned in the signed SHA256SUM.asc file, then this is the actual one that was released by Core.
The UASF client is built on top of core, using very minimal (though significant in spirit) changes which have already been reviewed by many developers, and it is known not to be malicious in code.
The released binaries unfortunately do not have signed SHA256SUM.asc file, but we are still able to verify that the code used in building the release is the same one that has been reviewed on github by many eyes. We can do this by validating the gitian build results and comparing them to the released packages' hashes.
The gitian build process is clever in the sense that it is deterministic, and for anyone who runs the process, the results should be the same if nothing is changed in the code or in the operating system used to build the code into a binary. The results are also signed by the person doing the process, so as more people run the process and sign it, we can be sure that what we get as a package matches what we should expect if we build it ourselves.
For the UASF client, there are already 3 builders and signers who also regularly sign the Core gitian build, with one actually being Wladimir, so if you already run Core, you should have no issue trusting the same signer to run the UASF release after verifying the gitian build results.
You'll need some program like sha256sum to get the SHA256 hash of files, and PGP software. I will be using gpg.
Files you'll need :
The binaries applicable for your operating system from [removed (self moderated)- see the official website]
I will use bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz for this example, since this is what I run.
A builder's public key file
Any will do but I will use the first one for this example, since essentially it's the same one that signs the Core releases.
Your build of choice's gitian build .assert and signature .sig files
You'll need to get the pair that matches the key from the previous step. For me, that would be the first pair.

With all 3 files in one directory, we start by hashing the downloaded packaged release
Hash the archive
$ sha256sum bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 16309ad82fad310937986a7041bdd251a7891ed1b8ccac5fa6ef869c10c89259 bitcoin-0.14.1-bip148_segwit0.3-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 

Verify that this hash exist in the build log output for this arcive
$ grep 16309ad82fad310937986a7041bdd251a7891ed1b8ccac5fa6ef869c10c89259 bitcoin-linux-0.14-build.assert 16309ad82fad310937986a7041bdd251a7891ed1b8ccac5fa6ef869c10c89259 bitcoin-0.14.1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 
Here we see that the file was renamed. This is not important, since the content remained the same.

Verify the key
$ gpg --keyid-format LONG  sub 2048F69705ED890DE427 2011-08-24 
Look for 7481 0B01 2346 C9A6 on for example (the last 8 bytes of the full length key)

Convert the key into a similar format which can be used on the fly (for simplicity, so we don't have to walk through creating a keychain)
$ gpg --dearmor laanwj-key.bin 
This will produce no output, but a new file will be created named laanwj-key.bin. This is the same key in a different format that gpg can also verify.

Verify the signature over the gitian build using the public key and signature
$ gpg --no-default-keyring --keyring ./laanwj-key.bin --verify ./bitcoin-linux-0.14-build.assert.sig gpg: assuming signed data in `./bitcoin-linux-0.14-build.assert' gpg: Signature made Mon 24 Apr 2017 11:57:58 AM IDT using RSA key ID 2346C9A6 gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan " gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 71A3 B167 3540 5025 D447 E8F2 7481 0B01 2346 C9A6 
Note the 3rd line, the signature is valid. The 4th and 5th line only warn us that we never suggested trust in the key to gpg itself, and the last line is Wladimir's full key as we saw from his website.
At this point, we should be convinced that the file we have was indeed the same one built and signed by the key, so it should be safe to run and use.
Hopefully this reduces concern, and we could have more participants running UASF binaries today, which they are safe to replace to a new Core release should it be shipped with the BIP148 code.


submitted by moosapor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I'm excited about BIP 148 but BIP 149 is more conservative. If I commit to the BIP 148 chain, and it does not succeed, then BIP 149 will be a different chain. Can I have both?

BIP 148 commits its users to SegWit on 1 August 2017, and may split the chain for a while (until economic incentives overwhelm holdout miners) to do so. Forcing the question the way BIP 148 does creates a powerful force to make everyone choose a side, as luke-jr explains here.
BIP 149 activates SegWit, via UASF, without checking miner signaling, on 4 July 2018. This is the version that shaolinfry is most recently advocating.
BitcoinCore devs have mostly washed their hands of the mess, having decided that users need to take some control and show the miners their place. Devs are not going to merge a solution into github's bitcoin repository for you. Don't wait for them. You can still get help with a binary build, here, but the disclaimers are strong.
There is an informal quorum discovery occurring now. If BIP 148 can work, it's better to have action sooner. If BIP 148 can't work, and we have to wait for BIP 149, then there's no clean way to back out of the BIP 148 commitment.
So what should we do about BIP 148? I think we need to acknowledge that signaling for it today is not actually committing to a prolonged chain split. I would like us all to understand that this is a gradual process.
submitted by spoonXT to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The history of the "opt-in" full RBF merged into core

1) Peter Todd (Bitcoin core developer, the author of the merged "opt-in" full RBF) convinced Chung Wang (Co-owner and chief administrator of the F2Pool) to adopt Full RBF at F2Pool
Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me.
Peter Todd Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:41:51 -0700
2) Many got disappointed, including Gavin Andersen (the chief scientist at Bitcoin Foundation and the former lead developer of Bitcoin core) and Adrian Macneil (Director of Engineering at Coinbase at that time):
Extremely disappointed to hear this. This change turns double spending from a calculable (and affordable) risk for merchant payment processors into certain profit for scammers, and provides no useful benefit for consumers.
Adrian Macneil, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:06:36 -0700
I was disappointed to see Peter Todd claiming that you have (or will?) run his replace-by-fee patch. I strongly encourage you to wait until most wallet software supports replace-by-fee before doing that, because until that happens replace-by-fee just makes it easier to steal from bitcoin-accepting merchants.
Gavin Andersen, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:35:14 -0700
3) F2Pool switched from full RBF to FSS (first-seen-safe) RBF
I know how bad the full RBF is. We are going to switch to FSS RBF in a few hours. Sorry.
Chun Wang, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:54:18 -0700
4) Founder and CEO of GreenAddress IT Limited tried to convince miners that full RBF is better for them
FSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF. <..> And why would miner pick the option paying less when other miners run the option paying more? It may be soon more than 1-5% of block reward.
Lawrence Nahum, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:19:16 -0700 (Founder and CEO of GreenAddress IT Limited)
5) Jeff Garzik, the developer of the Bitcoin core, agreed however that FSS RBF is better
Yes, FSS RBF is far better.
Jeff Garzik Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:45:18 -0700
6) After the long discussion, moderated by Theymos in order to remove distraction from poor trolls the so-called "opt-in" full-RBF got merged into the Core.
Am I missing anything?
Oh, the weird "opt-in" part of it (that doesn't opt-in anything). Why did they merge it?
Because there's too much FUD to get it merged without. Luke-jr, bitcoin core developer
How will Bitcoin become mainstream with 1Mb blocks, high fees and lack of 0-conf transactions?
Bitcoin core developers think it is inefficient to let every transaction be stored in the blockchain forever (and it is true).
They envision Bitcoin not as a public payment system available for everybody, but as a settlement layer for other complex technical solutions, so they are optimizing it for them. I have nothing against complex technical solutions, I am looking forward to them.
But I am against freezing the temporary 1Mb block size limit (that was introduced back in 2010) and adopting the RBF today because these changes to bitcoin policy may harm the main stream adoption of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin payment processors and merchants that are crucial for the adoption are likely to suffer and buyers are likely to get repelled by high fees and long confirmation times.
submitted by arsenische to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees | Luke Dashjr | May 12 2017

Luke Dashjr on May 12 2017:
I've written a new BIP draft for OP_CHECKBLOCKVERSION to allow the community
to put economic pressure on miners to deploy softforks without the extreme of
a UASF. 
Due to the potential for miners to maliciously block this softfork, it is
suggested that we deploy it using BIP 8 to ensure it eventually activates even
if encountering hostility.
This is intended to be an alternative to BIP 8 in the long term.
It is NOT intended to make BIP 148 obsolete, given the timeframes involved.
An implementation is available (based on top of BIP 115's implementation):
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Coin-A-Day Publishing Empire Presents: "A Very Funny Coin", Introducing The Comedy Gold Survey Company (CGSC)

♫ Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends! ♫
♫ We’re so glad you could attend; come inside; come inside! ♫
Welcome to a very special presentation from the Coin-a-Day publishing empire. Introducing the “Comedy Gold Survey Company” (CGSC), a non-incorporated satirical entity surveying comedy gold and producing “Proof-of-Comedy-Gold” (PoCG) test samples.
The Royal We promise to deliver the very best in comedy gold, and survey far and wide into the altcoin depths for maximum diversification in popcorn variety.
As a sample of our work, we present a small view of Bitcoin through the comedy gold survey filter. Enjoy!
Bitcoin. It’s the cryptocurrency that paved the road for them all, and it is the proven lode of comedy gold which led to the creation of /buttcoin , the world’s best cryptocurrency forum. From time to time, some have claimed that “peak gold” has been reached, but we believe that the comedy gold extracted so far is only the tip of the iceberg. To demonstrate this, we are releasing the executive summary of the speculative reserves section of our comedy gold survey on Bitcoin:

7 Largest Estimated Speculative Reserves of Comedy Gold

Exchange failures: Mt. Gox has been perhaps the highest yield single vein of extracted comedy gold in the history of Bitcoin. The smaller exchange failures since are numerous and have all yielded profitable return in comedy gold as well. So the safest bet in the world is that there will continue to be Bitcoin exchange failures yielding future comedy gold.
Part of the fun here is that anytime someone loses money on the exchanges, it is in no way Bitcoin’s fault, but the fault of the user for having funds on exchanges. They should have known better, as there were inevitably red flags relating to the exchange before its failure.
Cultlike atmosphere: The “best” cults are those with no self-awareness. Bitcoin’s core community seems to be good at that. They are religiously pro-Bitcoin, while believing themselves to be disinterestedly neutral. That is, they consider themselves logical and skeptical, but simply believe Bitcoin has no serious flaws.
This mentality has yielded a consistent supply of comedy gold on top of all other veins, like a comedy gold multiplier effect. It should continue to provide not only additional comedy gold, but also butter and salt.
Capacity hard cap & underlying community & development issues: For years now, there has been debate about what to do about Bitcoin’s 1MB hardcap. Many potential solutions have been proposed; some have been coded. None have been activated. As predicted by everyone, this has ultimately led to backlogs and rising fees. The $20 fees that Anonobread* foretold as “good for Bitcoin”™ are not yet commonplace, but the stray $10 or more has certainly appeared.
But this is only the start. Because it would be harder now in our opinion to do a successful hardfork to fix the problem than it would have been at the start, due to the splintering of the community which happened during the years of inaction. The problem is not now, nor has it ever been, coding for more capacity. Almost every single altcoin allows for more capacity than Bitcoin, although the Bitcoin community never seems to notice it when discussing the feasibility of going beyond 1MB.
Of course, none of this has been particularly surprising. Any Bitcoiners capable of considering other solutions rather than just waiting forever for Core to change their mind are already on altcoins. The Bitcoin-only community that remains are the sort who had AOL dial-up for years after they could have had DSL or better. Core has made it clear that they don’t feel the need for significant on-chain scaling and would prefer to rely upon vaporware off-chain.
And so, expect fees to continue to be unpredictable and spiky and for SFYL events to happen with them from bad fee calculation one way or another (overpayment fee SFYL, or underpayment fee causing stuck funds SFYL of weaseldust and/or kneecaps, or even resulting in double spend SFYL).
This is going to yield so much comedy gold you’re going to say, “stop, coin-a-day, we can’t handle all of the comedy gold! Our purses runneth over!” And I’m going to say, “sorry guys, the comedy gold must flow!”
Rising prices & continued volatility: As pointed out by everyone, the least likely outcome would be that Bitcoin would somehow stabilize in price.
The price will keep going up. We’ll see $10,000 BTC eventually, maybe even in 2017, although I think it will take a few more years. Of course, this is not investment advice by any means. This is just comedy gold forecasting. If the price were to rise like that, the quantity and quality of self-delivered gold from Bitcoiners to /buttcoin would exponentially increase. While it’s true that there are lulz to be had in crashes, the most gold comes when the Bitcoin economy is booming, and operating on its fundamentals.
A higher price means increased spending, generally. Increased spending on weaseldust and shady exchanges and altcoins and other SFYL opportunities. It means a booming market of Bitcoin businesses to bolster the comedy gold futures as they build up to their inevitable exit scam. It means new ICOs and new venture capital in sidegold. It goes without saying that this is good for Bitcoin, but what Bitcoiners don’t realize is it’s even better for comedy gold and popcorn futures. Bitcoin fundamentals drive comedy gold, so the stronger its “fundamentals”, with price certainly being a core one, the stronger the comedy gold production and popcorn markets.
Luke-jr: Ah, luke-jr. The gift that keeps on giving in terms of comedy gold. When everyone else said “we should add more capacity for the future”, Luke said, “No, the blocks are too large already.” When everyone else said “the blocks are full; we should plan for raising the hard-cap”, Luke said, “Yes. But the blocks are too full now; we should reduce the hardcap, and slowly raise it over the next few decades to a slightly larger size.”
This visionary, unafraid to stand alone against the mob, will continue to give the best opinions, opinions that annoy everyone and spark controversy, lulz, and tears. See also his “Tonal Bitcoin”, the only compatible alt in existence, because it’s really just a client skin to express BTC in terms of his preferred numeric system.
We expect great things in the future from Luke. In his own way, he seems representative of the Bitcoin community among society at large: living in their own little bubbles, determined that one day everyone shall know their great truths and realize they were right all along!
nullc: nullc as well deserves particular mention as being certain to deliver future comedy gold. A known Buttcoiner himself, and master troll, he is a hero of the Thermos empire, and a villain to the large blockers in the blocksize comedy and the debates that went with it.
He is the Karl Rove of Blockstream, and for Bitcoin as a whole in our view. Brilliant, successful, and highly manipulative. He revels in criticism, for its attention if nothing else. If anyone can be said to be running Bitcoin at this point, it is him. And although he will never acknowledge or claim the role, he’ll fight hard, or at least troll well, to keep that power.
jstolfi: jstolfi , computer science professor and Bitcoin critic. AKA “Shillin’ Brazilian” Dislikes everything about Bitcoin, but knows everything about it. We hear that there are unconfirmed rumors started by us that some people say he might be Satoshi.
Rest assured, when he reveals his secret identity and uncloaks his interstellar comet above Liberland, the comedy gold will truly runneth over. The faithful hodlers of even a single satoshi shall be granted their entrance, and it shall proceed to the moonbase for further indoctrinationtechnical briefing. There will be a brief orientation on the reptilians, and then everyone will retire to refreshments.
You need more. More comedy gold. There is never enough! But we at the Comedy Gold Survey Company know that there is so much more gold just waiting to be surveyed, mined, and hodled! We need your help though!
With your generous donation of $5, $25, or even more, you can help to encourage a coinaday to research more altcoins and publish surveys of their comedy reserves. We can even provide a “Proof-of-Comedy-Gold” digital certificate (cough half-assed Paint job cough) to you for your donation of $100 or more, which will recognize a sample ounce of comedy gold mined in your honor.
Thanks to our friends at the Federal Reserve and Patreon, we bring you the coinaday publishing empire donation page. Additionally, if you’d like to donate by BTC or any other cryptocurrency, please contact me for a donation address.
A note on length: I apologize for the massive post. This really should be broken out into two or more posts. But I wanted to give a good sample of what I’m offering, but didn’t want to clutter up the sub with excess self-promotion. So I figured I’d mega post it and those who don’t like it only have one post to downvote and hide, and those who do like it can hopefully derive maximum euphoria from such a huge, throbbing document.
submitted by coinaday to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 | Peter Todd | Feb 12 2015

Peter Todd on Feb 12 2015:
My replace-by-fee patch is now available for the v0.10.0rc4 release:
Along with demo scripts of the functionality:
New to this version is a comprehensive set of unittests under
Additionally the preferential peering support now preferentially peers
with Bitcoin XT¹ nodes that support Andresen/Harding's double-spend
relaying² patch. While Bitcoin XT nodes don't accept double-spends into
their mempool, they do relay them perfectly well and thus are an asset
to those doing replace-by-fee mining.³
I've had a number of requests from miners for a version of
replace-by-fee against Luke-Jr's Eligius patches⁴; I'll be also
releasing that shortly once this release has undergone some more
What's replace-by-fee?
Currently most Bitcoin nodes accept the first transaction they see
spending an output to the mempool; all later transactions are rejected.
Replace-by-fee changes this behavior to accept the transaction paying
the highest fee, both absolutely, and in terms of fee-per-KB. Replaced
children are also considered - a chain of transactions is only replaced
if the replacement has a higher fee than the sum of all replaced
Doing this aligns standard node behavior with miner incentives: earn the
most amount of money per block. It also makes for a more efficient
transaction fee marketplace, as transactions that are "stuck" due to bad
fee estimates can be "unstuck" by double-spending them with higher
paying versions of themselves. With scorched-earth techniques⁵ it gives
a path to making zeroconf transactions economically secure by relying on
economic incentives, rather than "honesty" and alturism, in the same way
Bitcoin mining itself relies on incentives rather than "honesty" and
Finally for miners adopting replace-by-fee avoids the development of an
ecosystem that relies heavily on large miners punishing smaller ones for
misbehavior, as seen in Harding's proposal⁶ that miners collectively 51%
attack miners who include doublespends in their blocks - an unavoidable
consequence of imperfect p2p networking in a decentralized system - or
even Hearn's proposal⁷ that a majority of miners be able to vote to
confiscate the earnings of the minority and redistribute them at will.
Once you've compiled the replace-by-fee-v0.10.0rc4 branch just run your
node normally. With -debug logging enabled, you'll see messages like the
following in your ~/.bitcoin/debug.log indicating your node is replacing
transactions with higher-fee paying double-spends:
2015-02-12 05:45:20 replacing tx ca07cc2a5eaf55ab13be7ed7d7526cb9d303086f116127608e455122263f93ea with c23973c08d71cdadf3a47bae45566053d364e77d21747ae7a1b66bf1dffe80ea for 0.00798 BTC additional fees, -1033 delta bytes 
Additionally you can tell if you are connected to other replace-by-fee
nodes, or Bitcoin XT nodes, by examining the service bits advertised by
your peers:
$ bitcoin-cli getpeerinfo | grep services | egrep '((0000000000000003)|(0000000004000001))' "services" : "0000000000000003", "services" : "0000000004000001", "services" : "0000000004000001", "services" : "0000000000000003", "services" : "0000000004000001", "services" : "0000000004000001", "services" : "0000000000000003", "services" : "0000000000000003", 
Replace-by-fee nodes advertise service bit 26 from the experimental use
range; Bitcoin XT nodes advertise service bit 1 for their getutxos
support. The code sets aside a certain number of outgoing and incoming
slots just for double-spend relaying nodes, so as long as everything is
working you're node should be connected to like-minded nodes a within 30
minutes or so of starting up.
If you don't want to advertise the fact that you are running a
replace-by-fee node, just checkout a slightly earlier commit in git; the
actual mempool changes are separate from the preferential peering
commits. You can then connect directly to a replace-by-fee node using
the -addnode command line flag.
6)[email protected]/msg06970.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Is it possible for the owner of to do this?

The owner of will show you his version of Bitcoin Core source code and hashes, disguised as the real Bitcoin Core developers.
Everything you see on will look legit except that the sourcecode and hashes are altered.
(I'm currently trying to verify the downloaded bitcoin-0.15.1-win64-setup.exe file by using the corresponding hash.)
(Also trying to understand 'web of trust' and 'multiple signatures' thingy. It's not related to this post though.)
submitted by BigBlueBawls to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

How to install UASF 0.3 on Raspberry Pi with ubuntu!

If you followed this guide ( to get your Raspberry Pi up and running and want to install the UASF instead of core.
Follow these steps:
  1. Add Luke-jr repository: sudo add-apt-repository ppa:luke-jbitcoin-core-bip148-unofficial-builds
  2. Update your Raspberry Pi: sudo apt-get update
  3. Upgrade your Raspberry Pi: sudo apt upgrade
  4. Start the bitcoin client: bitcoind -daemon
  5. Check if it worked: bitcoin-cli getnetworkinfo
You will see: "subversion": "/Satoshi:0.14.1(UASF-SegWit-BI)/UASF-Segwit:0.3(BIP148)/" or newer if a new release came out.
I am a total noob so don't ask me anything. But this worked for me and might help other people to get started.
submitted by rotkive to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Keep your Bitcoin Core UASF node up to date

Note to folks with a fake uacomment: that neither helps nor works. Upgrade to BIP148!
Those who want to use BIP148 have two main choices: UASF BIP148 and Bitcoin Knots. The first has bip148 enabled by default. The second follows a PR originally proposed to Bitcoin Core (and rejected) which adds bip148=0 (option, disabled by default) so it needs to be enabled in configuration file or at runtime.
Make a backup of your wallet.dat, just in case.

Bitcoin Core SegWit UASF BIP148

This is the "original" BIP148 version.
1) Get the source at
Current release: v1.0 -
As a reminder, your install options are as follows:
a) Binaries: Bitcoin Core v0.14.2-based UASF SegWit BIP148 can be downloaded here (decompress and then run desired binary (bitcoind for daemon/server, bitcoin-cli for the CLI, etc.) which you can find in bin subdirectory; there's also a PPA for Ubuntu users who prefer apt-get install).
b) Source: get the source at the URL at the top. Build as usual, following official Bitcoin Core instructions.
To install, stop and (if you want) remove existing Bitcoin Core. Then install and run Bitcoin SegWit UASF BIP148. Windows users who use installer (filenames that end with *setup-unsigned.exe) should first uninstall existing Bitcoin Core before they install this version.
How to verify binaries (signatures):
You can also verify checksums by importing Luke's PGP key and ensuring checksums in SHA256SUMS.asc(example here) match those of the downloaded file(s).

Bitcoin Knots

This is Luke-Jr's Bitcoin release with many enhancements and a BIP148 option. You can find more at
Get it at Install procedure for binaries is the same as for UASF BIP148 binaries, but with one added step:
Windows users who use installer (filenames that end with *setup-unsigned.exe) need to first uninstall existing Bitcoin Core before they can install this version.
If you want to build from the source, refer to Bitcoin Knots documentation (because it has a number of different options compared to Bitcoin Core).
How to verify binaries (signatures): download and import Luke's PGP key, refresh PGP keys, then verify the signed checksums file corresponds to the checksum of the binary you downloaded for your system.

Updating installed binaries

If you're updating either UASF BIP148 or Knots binaries (which you downloaded as zip or tgz file and decompressed to your disk), stop Bitcoin, decompress newer binaries over old binaries, then start service again. You can also move old binaries and then deploy the latest binaries.

Reverting to Bitcoin Core

Before chain split

Prior to chain split (such as before Aug 1), you can "go back" by simply removing BIP148 or Knots and installing Bitcoin Core 0.14.2. You can't go back to an earlier release such as 0.12 (same behavior as with Bitcoin Core).
Starting with UASF BIP148 v1.0, however, there's less need to be concerned about going back to Bitcoin Core - as mentioned above, Bitcoin Core 0.14.2 behavior can be achieved by restarting UASF BIP148 v1.0 or Bitcoin Knots with bitp148=0.
Should you want to remove UASF BIP148-compatible and run Bitcoin Core 0.14.2, you can do this:
Then install Bitcoin Core 0.14.2.

In the case of a chain split

Please remember to pay special attention to wallet.dat if you use one. This section only deals with the change of the binary and blockchain rewind, and not coin splitting and wallet backups.
If chains splits on or after August 1st, you would have to rewind the blockchain in order to use a different Bitcoin release on another chain. Details will vary depending on the circumstances (for example, we can't know in advance which chains will exist.)
UASF BIP148 v1.0 (not older releases) makes it possible to set bip148=0 and restart which automatically rewinds the blockchain to be consistent with Core. If you wanted to change to Bitcoin Core, you could first restart UASF BIP148 or Knots with bip148=0 to rewind the blockchain, then uninstall the binaries and install Bitcoin Core.
If a chain split happens, check or this subreddit for specific details.

Be back in late July!

In the second half of July, check for updates on a weekly basis. There may be further updates or improvements.


2017-07-12 - reminder to pay attention to wallet backup in case of changing the binaries or startup options after a chain split
2017-07-11 - download links updated for v1.0, added about auto-rewind in v1.0, other small edits
Edit: this post may be updated prior to August 1st.
submitted by eustan to UASF [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Node Puppet Module updated to enable UASF

A while back I published my Puppet module on both the Puppet Forge and GitHub so that I could manage my Bitcoin Node install/configuration along with the rest of my VPS stack with Puppet.
The module will automagically create a local usegroup, install, configure and start (either via Upstart for Trusty/Precise or Systemd for Xenial) start the headless bitcoind service.
Additional features include downloading a specific version from the Bitcoin Core website and unpacking the tarball (useful if the PPA hasn't been updated yet), and a whole smorgasbord of configurable daemon settings such as peer bloom filters and maximum connections.
Puppet Forge (updated release coming tomorrow):
My node (freshly updated to 0.14.2-UASF):
Status script used on my node:
Example code to install UASF (without the final two parameters, standard Core is used from the official PPA):
class { 'bitcoind': disablewallet => true, rpcallowip => ['123.456.789.100'], rpcuser => 'oliver' rpcpassword => 'youvegottopickapocketortwo', ppa_name => 'luke-jbitcoin-core-bip148-unofficial-builds', package_name => 'bitcoin', } 
As usual, comments/PRs/tips/insults welcome :)
submitted by CraigWatson1987 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Companion Post] - Bitcoin Client Proposals - Quick Links - Official URL's - Honorable Mentions

This is a companion post for:

Honorable Mentions (May update to include more info)

Official Github:
Official Github:
Official Github:
Official Github:
submitted by SouperNerd to btc [link] [comments]

06-27 18:52 - 'TIL lukejr has a PPA for UASF binaries' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/kinoshitajona removed from /r/Bitcoin within 151-161min

# Anyone who already has the main ppa bitcoin-cli stop sudo apt-get remove bitcoind sudo add-apt-repository --remove [link]^^1 # Newbies start from here sudo add-apt-repository [link]^^2 sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install bitcoind bitcoind -daemon 
Building it isn't that hard, but if you want a PPA, here's a PPA.
TIL lukejr has a PPA for UASF binaries
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: kinoshitajona
1: ppa:bitcoin/bitcoin 2: ppa:luke-jbitcoin-core-bip148-unofficial-builds
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

bcoin Roasts the Core Devs Bitcoin Core Dev Tony Luke Jr Speaking at This Disease of Addiction #brownandwhite Bitcoin Chainsplit: Segwit2x, Replay Protection, and Security Risks A beer payed with testnet coins on Lightning Networks at ROOM 77 IN berlin

This page was last edited on 18 September 2012, at 00:09. Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unless otherwise noted.; Privacy policy; About ... Bitcoin Dev Luke Jr: Mixing Bitcoins is Money Laundering, and it's Illegal, also Tax Evasion is a Sin. Use of Bitcoin Nor Free Speech is a Right. - gist:5803075 Luke Dashjr Independent Bitcoin/Blockchain Consultant (Bitcoin Core developer) Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida Area 218 connections Bitcoin integration/staging tree. Contribute to luke-jr/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub. Luke-Jr is a contributor to Bitcoin Magazine

[index] [2380] [24613] [36797] [26955] [32739] [8559] [30140] [22446] [39134] [25405]

bcoin Roasts the Core Devs

Bitcoin Core Dev "Luke-jr" is asked why he is interested in Bitcoin. This is one of the main people in charge of Bitcoin right now. @Roastbeef payed it. Luke Jr, Anton Yemelianov, Matt Corallo, Eric Lombroso, Giacomo Zucco, ThomasV and Andrea Schildbach were there too. Interview with Bitcoin Core Developer Luke-Jr (@LukeDashjr) Included in the conversation Gibus, MrHodl, and others. What follows is an informal chat about the upcoming Bitcoin chain split in ... Small block proponent and Core Dev member Luke Jr is asked Why he is interested in Bitcoin. (He isn't sure) Bitcoin Cash proponent and CEO of Roger Ver gives his answer to the same ... Luke-jr welcomes you to his house - Duration: 1:13. Brian ... SF Bitcoin Developers 15,140 views. 1:35:19. Exception to The Bitcoin Standard - Saifedean Armis - Duration: 1:04. Brian Hoffman 347 ...