Bitcoin Knots

Groestlcoin 6th Anniversary Release

Introduction

Dear Groestlers, it goes without saying that 2020 has been a difficult time for millions of people worldwide. The groestlcoin team would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone our best to everyone coping with the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19. Let it bring out the best in us all and show that collectively, we can conquer anything.
The centralised banks and our national governments are facing unprecedented times with interest rates worldwide dropping to record lows in places. Rest assured that this can only strengthen the fundamentals of all decentralised cryptocurrencies and the vision that was seeded with Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper over 10 years ago. Despite everything that has been thrown at us this year, the show must go on and the team will still progress and advance to continue the momentum that we have developed over the past 6 years.
In addition to this, we'd like to remind you all that this is Groestlcoin's 6th Birthday release! In terms of price there have been some crazy highs and lows over the years (with highs of around $2.60 and lows of $0.000077!), but in terms of value– Groestlcoin just keeps getting more valuable! In these uncertain times, one thing remains clear – Groestlcoin will keep going and keep innovating regardless. On with what has been worked on and completed over the past few months.

UPDATED - Groestlcoin Core 2.18.2

This is a major release of Groestlcoin Core with many protocol level improvements and code optimizations, featuring the technical equivalent of Bitcoin v0.18.2 but with Groestlcoin-specific patches. On a general level, most of what is new is a new 'Groestlcoin-wallet' tool which is now distributed alongside Groestlcoin Core's other executables.
NOTE: The 'Account' API has been removed from this version which was typically used in some tip bots. Please ensure you check the release notes from 2.17.2 for details on replacing this functionality.

How to Upgrade?

Windows
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer.
OSX
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), run the dmg and drag Groestlcoin Core to Applications.
Ubuntu
http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=441.0

Other Linux

http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=97.0

Download

Download the Windows Installer (64 bit) here
Download the Windows Installer (32 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (32 bit) here
Download the OSX Installer here
Download the OSX binaries here
Download the Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Linux binaries (32 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (32 bit) here

Source

ALL NEW - Groestlcoin Moonshine iOS/Android Wallet

Built with React Native, Moonshine utilizes Electrum-GRS's JSON-RPC methods to interact with the Groestlcoin network.
GRS Moonshine's intended use is as a hot wallet. Meaning, your keys are only as safe as the device you install this wallet on. As with any hot wallet, please ensure that you keep only a small, responsible amount of Groestlcoin on it at any given time.

Features

Download

iOS
Android

Source

ALL NEW! – HODL GRS Android Wallet

HODL GRS connects directly to the Groestlcoin network using SPV mode and doesn't rely on servers that can be hacked or disabled.
HODL GRS utilizes AES hardware encryption, app sandboxing, and the latest security features to protect users from malware, browser security holes, and even physical theft. Private keys are stored only in the secure enclave of the user's phone, inaccessible to anyone other than the user.
Simplicity and ease-of-use is the core design principle of HODL GRS. A simple recovery phrase (which we call a Backup Recovery Key) is all that is needed to restore the user's wallet if they ever lose or replace their device. HODL GRS is deterministic, which means the user's balance and transaction history can be recovered just from the backup recovery key.

Features

Download

Main Release (Main Net)
Testnet Release

Source

ALL NEW! – GroestlcoinSeed Savior

Groestlcoin Seed Savior is a tool for recovering BIP39 seed phrases.
This tool is meant to help users with recovering a slightly incorrect Groestlcoin mnemonic phrase (AKA backup or seed). You can enter an existing BIP39 mnemonic and get derived addresses in various formats.
To find out if one of the suggested addresses is the right one, you can click on the suggested address to check the address' transaction history on a block explorer.

Features

Live Version (Not Recommended)

https://www.groestlcoin.org/recovery/

Download

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/mnemonic-recovery/archive/master.zip

Source

ALL NEW! – Vanity Search Vanity Address Generator

NOTE: NVidia GPU or any CPU only. AMD graphics cards will not work with this address generator.
VanitySearch is a command-line Segwit-capable vanity Groestlcoin address generator. Add unique flair when you tell people to send Groestlcoin. Alternatively, VanitySearch can be used to generate random addresses offline.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic addresses generated by regular groestlcoin clients, then VanitySearch is the right choice for you to create a more personalized address.
VanitySearch is a groestlcoin address prefix finder. If you want to generate safe private keys, use the -s option to enter your passphrase which will be used for generating a base key as for BIP38 standard (VanitySearch.exe -s "My PassPhrase" FXPref). You can also use VanitySearch.exe -ps "My PassPhrase" which will add a crypto secure seed to your passphrase.
VanitySearch may not compute a good grid size for your GPU, so try different values using -g option in order to get the best performances. If you want to use GPUs and CPUs together, you may have best performances by keeping one CPU core for handling GPU(s)/CPU exchanges (use -t option to set the number of CPU threads).

Features

Usage

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/VanitySearch#usage

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020

Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020 is a windows app built from the ground-up and makes it easier than ever before to create your very own bespoke bech32 address(es) when whilst not connected to the internet.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic bech32 addresses generated by regular Groestlcoin clients, then Groestlcoin EasyVanity2020 is the right choice for you to create a more personalised bech32 address. This 2020 version uses the new VanitySearch to generate not only legacy addresses (F prefix) but also Bech32 addresses (grs1 prefix).

Features

Download

Source

Remastered! – Groestlcoin WPF Desktop Wallet (v2.19.0.18)

Groestlcoin WPF is an alternative full node client with optional lightweight 'thin-client' mode based on WPF. Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is one of Microsoft's latest approaches to a GUI framework, used with the .NET framework. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for exporting blockchain.dat and including a lite wallet mode.
This wallet was previously deprecated but has been brought back to life with modern standards.

Features

Remastered Improvements

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – BIP39 Key Tool

Groestlcoin BIP39 Key Tool is a GUI interface for generating Groestlcoin public and private keys. It is a standalone tool which can be used offline.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux :
 pip3 install -r requirements.txt python3 bip39\_gui.py 

Source

ALL NEW! – Electrum Personal Server

Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server aims to make using Electrum Groestlcoin wallet more secure and more private. It makes it easy to connect your Electrum-GRS wallet to your own full node.
It is an implementation of the Electrum-grs server protocol which fulfils the specific need of using the Electrum-grs wallet backed by a full node, but without the heavyweight server backend, for a single user. It allows the user to benefit from all Groestlcoin Core's resource-saving features like pruning, blocks only and disabled txindex. All Electrum-GRS's feature-richness like hardware wallet integration, multi-signature wallets, offline signing, seed recovery phrases, coin control and so on can still be used, but connected only to the user's own full node.
Full node wallets are important in Groestlcoin because they are a big part of what makes the system be trust-less. No longer do people have to trust a financial institution like a bank or PayPal, they can run software on their own computers. If Groestlcoin is digital gold, then a full node wallet is your own personal goldsmith who checks for you that received payments are genuine.
Full node wallets are also important for privacy. Using Electrum-GRS under default configuration requires it to send (hashes of) all your Groestlcoin addresses to some server. That server can then easily spy on your transactions. Full node wallets like Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server would download the entire blockchain and scan it for the user's own addresses, and therefore don't reveal to anyone else which Groestlcoin addresses they are interested in.
Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can also broadcast transactions through Tor which improves privacy by resisting traffic analysis for broadcasted transactions which can link the IP address of the user to the transaction. If enabled this would happen transparently whenever the user simply clicks "Send" on a transaction in Electrum-grs wallet.
Note: Currently Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can only accept one connection at a time.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux / OSX (Instructions)

Source

UPDATED – Android Wallet 7.38.1 - Main Net + Test Net

The app allows you to send and receive Groestlcoin on your device using QR codes and URI links.
When using this app, please back up your wallet and email them to yourself! This will save your wallet in a password protected file. Then your coins can be retrieved even if you lose your phone.

Changes

Download

Main Net
Main Net (FDroid)
Test Net

Source

UPDATED – Groestlcoin Sentinel 3.5.06 (Android)

Groestlcoin Sentinel is a great solution for anyone who wants the convenience and utility of a hot wallet for receiving payments directly into their cold storage (or hardware wallets).
Sentinel accepts XPUB's, YPUB'S, ZPUB's and individual Groestlcoin address. Once added you will be able to view balances, view transactions, and (in the case of XPUB's, YPUB's and ZPUB's) deterministically generate addresses for that wallet.
Groestlcoin Sentinel is a fork of Groestlcoin Samourai Wallet with all spending and transaction building code removed.

Changes

Download

Source

UPDATED – P2Pool Test Net

Changes

Download

Pre-Hosted Testnet P2Pool is available via http://testp2pool.groestlcoin.org:21330/static/

Source

submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Full Node - Raspberry Pi

On all the tutorials I see for running bitcoin on a raspberry pi, they all git clone bitcoin from github and build bitcoind from source. Is this necessary?

Can I not just download / verify signatures of bitcoind / bitcoin-qt from bitcoin.org and run the executables?
submitted by ribeyezz to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Operation Guide For Wallet - "Vault Of Digital Assets"

Operation Guide For Wallet -


Since entering the cryptocurrency realm, the mobile apps concerning the mining, trading, market, news, message, deposit, etc. have more than doubled. Then, what is “deposit”? It is another saying of digital currency wallet, let’s take a look at the meaning and how to use it?
The wallet is the Keeper of Secret Key
Nowadays, digital assets have become the standard choice for many investors, among them, for long-term holders, wallets have become an indispensable tool for storing assets. In daily life, a wallet is a pocket-size case for holding paper money and various bank cards, while in the digital currency field, the function of the wallet is more complicated and many investors know little about it.
What’s a Crypto Wallet?
A cryptocurrency wallet is a piece of software that keeps track of the secret keys used to digitally sign cryptocurrency transactions for distributed ledgers. Because those keys are the only way to prove ownership of digital assets — and to execute transactions that transfer them or change them in some way — they are a critical piece of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
A cryptocurrency wallet is a device, physical medium, program or service which stores the public and/or private keys and can be used to track ownership, receive or spend cryptocurrencies. It is comparable to a bank account, contains a pair of public and private cryptographic keys. A public key allows for other wallets to make payments to the wallet’s address, whereas a private key enables the spending of cryptocurrency from that address.

https://preview.redd.it/8n2i5kn0krw21.jpg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfa83986d7a3c2b96c85ed516c434da90e63d57a
What are the Public Key, Private Key, and Wallet Address?
Key: Generated by a cryptographic algorithm and presented in pairs, consisting of a private key and a public key.
Private Key: A private key is a sophisticated form of cryptography that allows a user to access his or her cryptocurrency. A private key is an integral aspect of bitcoin and altcoins, and its security make up helps to protect a user from theft and unauthorized access to funds.
Public Key: A public key is a cryptographic code that allows a user to receive cryptocurrencies into his or her account. The public key is created from the private key through a complicated mathematical algorithm. However, it is near impossible to reverse the process by generating a private key from a public key.
Wallet Address: A wallet address is similar to a bank account number. It’s a unique 26–35 digit combination of letters and numbers. Each wallet automatically generates a bitcoin address. You can share this bitcoin address with others to let them know how to send coins to your wallet.
Digital Signature: A digital signature is something you can use to show that you know the private key connected to a public key, without having to reveal the actual private key. It allows non-repudiation as it means the person who sent the message had to be in possession of the private key and so, therefore, owns the Bitcoins — anyone on the network can verify the transaction as a result.


It is not difficult to find through the above diagram that there are many types of blockchain wallets. The most important criterion is whether to master the private key of digital assets. Remember that only the owner of the private key can assess the digital assets.
The private key is recommended to be kept on paper and must not lose! Don’t tell others! Because it represents the ownership of the wallet and the right to operate it. Unlike the password of the bank card, if you forgot it, you can first freeze it and then reset it with your ID card, however, in the world of blockchain, if the private key is lost, it cannot be recovered and the funds secured by it are forever lost, too.
The choice of wallet also needs to be serious. There are various wallet choices, including imToken, APPMyEtherWallet, Bitecoin-QT, BlockChain, Litecoin-QT, Ethereum Wallet, Bitpie, etc. From the perspective of security and scalability, Bitpie and imToken are the two most widely used wallets.
Where can I Download the Wallet?
  1. Ethereum Wallet: imToken (Open source wallets are the safest)
Official Website: https://token.im
Tutorial: https://token.im/support
  1. Bitcoin Wallet: Bitpie (The most powerful wallet in China)
Instructions: http://docs.bitpie.com/zh_CN/latest/
  1. EOS Wallet:
Download: https://www.mytokenpocket.vip/
Single-Signature Address + Multi-Signature Address Improve the Asset Security
In daily digital currency transactions, except for obtaining digital assets via OTC transactions, users can transfer digital currency in their wallet to the exchange wallet. The private key is held by the exchange, while only the public key is available to the user, the transfer of the assets is equivalent to deposit the digital assets to the third-party platform.
We can simply simulate the use of digital currency wallets.
When transfer, the recipient only needs to send the address of the wallet to the counterparty, who may transfer the digital assets to the provided address.
When trading on an exchange, users only need to transfer the digital assets to the address set by the exchange, which is the wallet, to complete the transaction. Accordingly, the exchange will transfer the digital assets to the user’s wallet address (or the wallet of other exchanges provided by the user) when the user chooses to withdraw.
From a simple point of view, the transfer and transaction of digital currency rely on the wallet, thus, the security of the wallet determines the safety of the digital currency.
From a global perspective, the exchange’s major money-losing incidents have occurred frequently, the most famous of which is the Mt.Gox incident, leading to the bankruptcy of the world’s largest exchange operator — Mt.Gox. This shows the importance of choosing the trading platform.
Eric, Technical Manager of 58COIN, once pointed out that investors may often see single-signature addresses starting with “1” (such as 1l, 1p, 1n), and multi-signature addresses starting with “3”. A multi-signature address consists of three single-signature addresses and requires two or more authorizations. For example, A, B, and C three people, if anyone of them wants to buy a thing, two or more signatures are required before the purchase. This is a way to improve security.
58COIN exchange adopts the above two methods to improve the security of the assets. If the project party wants to launch a cryptocurrency, they need to provide a complete solution, and 58COIN will only accept the investor’s assets after ensuring the safety of the project. If an exchange is still using a single-signature address, then you need to go to the exchange to see if it is safe.
In short, the choice of the wallet depends on the user’s situation. If the transaction amount is large, it is recommended to use the wallet with the private key. If the total amount of small transactions is large, you can deposit in the exchange so as to make the operations easier.
Website: https://ww.58coin.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coin.58COIN
Twitter: https://twitter.com/58_coin
Telegram: https://t.me/official58
submitted by 58CoinExchange to u/58CoinExchange [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

WARNING: A fake electrum website with malware is advertising on duckduckgo and yahoo.

If you perform a search for electrum on duckduckgo or yahoo, an ad claiming to be electrum.org will be at the top.
In reality the ad links to: electrum-bitcoin org
The domain was created December 21.
This site is nearly identical to electrum.org except the download links give different files. All three of the files that can be download are much smaller than the real electrum and are most likely malware. The three files are: electrum.exe - 91136 bytes electrum.out - 60316 bytes electrum.zip - 32478 bytes
EDIT: Some Advice:
When installing software, especially something as import as wallet software, it is a good idea to verify the integrity of the download with a signature using a key that was obtained from one or more seperate sources.
I made a list of the keys used to sign popular bitcoin wallets below to act as another source to verify the integrity of those keys.
Bitcoin-Qt: Signer: Gavin Andresen [email protected] Fingerprint: 2664 6D99 CBAE C9B8 1982 EF60 29D9 EE6B 1FC7 30C1 Key ID: 1FC730C1 Key Link: bitcoin.org/gavinandresen.asc
Electrum: Signer: ThomasV [email protected] Fingerprint: 6694 D8DE 7BE8 EE56 31BE D950 2BD5 824B 7F94 70E6 Key ID: 7F9470E6 Keyserver: pool.sks-keyservers.net
Multibit: Signer: Jim Burton (multibit.org developer) jim618[email protected] Fingerprint: 299C 423C 672F 47F4 756A 6BA4 C197 2AED 79F7 C572 Key ID: 79F7C572 Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu
Armory: Signer: Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) [email protected] Fingerprint: 821F 1229 36BD D565 366A C36A 4AB1 6AEA 9883 2223 Key ID: 98832223 Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu
The signatures provided for some of the wallets are signatures of the hash values, so be sure to verify that the hash of the downloaded file matches the hash that was signed.
EDIT: GPG Examples:
Verifying Bitcoin-Qt:
First download, import and check Gavin's key:
Download his key at bitcoin.org/gavinandresen.asc
In terminal or command line run:
gpg --import gavinandresen.asc gpg --fingerprint 
Check that the fingerprint for Gavin's key matches 01CD F462 7A3B 88AA E4A5 71C8 7588 242F BE38 D3A8.
Then download the wallet software and signature.
Verify the signature:
gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc 
You should see:
gpg: Good signature from "Gavin Andresen (CODE SIGNING KEY) " 
The signature for Bitcoin-Qt signs the hash values. So we must compute the hash of the downloaded software. This example is using the linux version.
gpg --print-md SHA256 bitcoin-0.8.6-linux.tar.gz 
Check that the output matches the associated hash value in SHA256SUMS.asc
Verifying Electrum:
First download, import and check ThomasV's key:
This key can be found at a keyserver.
gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 7F9470E6 gpg --fingerprint 
Check the fingerprint.
Download Electrum and the signature.
Verify the signature:
gpg --verify Electrum-1.9.6.zip.asc 
You should see:
gpg: Good signature from "ThomasV " 
For this example you do not need to compute any hash values because the signature is signing the downloaded file directly.
submitted by dcc4e to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Monero Missives (weekly report) - September 16th, 2014

Original post is here
Monero Missives
September 15th, 2014
Hello, and welcome to our twelfth Monero Missive! This is our first Missive after a bit of a break whilst we thwarted two related blockchain attacks. Nonetheless, we have not sat by idly, we have been finalising and completing a brand new aspect of Monero designed to protect your privacy now and in the future: the Monero Research Lab
Major Updates
  1. The Monero Research Lab is an open collective and a multi-faceted academic group focused on the ongoing improvement of Monero. Membership is not fixed, and comes and goes as researchers become interested in Monero. This isn't a group focused on the addition of "features" to Monero, but rather the analysis and improvement of the underlying core of Monero to make sure that the theories and cryptography behind Monero continue to remain robust and sound. With that in mind, we are proud to announce the release of the first two publications out of the Monero Research Lab: MRL-0001 - A Note on Chain Reactions in Traceability in CryptoNote 2.0 - this is a research bulletin that investigates how a chain reaction could weaken the blockchain resistance properties of CryptoNote's ring signatures if low mixin values are consistently chosen MRL-0002 - Counterfeiting via Merkle Tree Exploits within Virtual Currencies Employing the CryptoNote Protocol - in this research bulletin we investigate how the block 202612 attack occurred and what it exploited, and also covers the permanent fix we have put in place
  2. This week Friday we're going to have our second #Monero-Dev Fireside Chat this week Friday, September 19th, 2014, at 10:00 EST which is 14:00 UTC and 16:00 UTC +2. For a full table of the time zones you can refer to this image, or you can use this online tool to add your city and make sure you have the correct starting time. Please note that this is a developer event, and so most of the focus will be from that perspective.
  3. To pick up where we left off with our last Missive, we are also happy to announce the availability of Monero merchandise on the Monero Gear store, powered by Zazzle. The advantage of us using Zazzle is that it is on-demand and we never have to worry about print runs or stock or anything. In return we get 15% of each sale as a "royalty" that will go towards enabling further Monero development, although Zazzle do not (yet!) accept Bitcoin or Monero. We hope to add new designs to the store on a regular basis. You can check the store out here: http://www.zazzle.com/monerogear* or take a peek at some of the new designs right here
  4. We are also pleased to announce the release of URS, a Monero project written in Go that allows you to sign messages using ring signatures as part of a group. The signature can be verified, but it cannot be determined which one of the signatories in the group did the actual signing (just like Monero uses for transactional unlinkability!). You can take a look at the project here: https://github.com/monero-project/urs, and the Bitcointalk thread dedicated to the project is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=768499.0
  5. We have a new tagged release, 0.8.8.4, available for download (binaries: Windows, Mac, Linux, FreeBSD). This adds the following features: Testnet: we now have an operating testnet. When using bitmonerod or simplewallet you can now use the --testnet flag to use testnet instead of mainnet. Feel free to run a mining node or just a testnet node, we will be setting up email alerts for testnet nodes when an update is pending (although having a few older testnet nodes on the network won't hurt testing). FreeBSD Compatability: Monero now works on FreeBSD out the box. We will add it to the ports tree soon. At the moment compilation is no different from regular Linux and Unix compilation, and the same dependencies apply. GPG commits: we have begun GPG-signing commits and merges. This is an important step in maintaining the integrity of the codebase, and will ensure that any compromise of our computers or even the github account won't allow a malicious attacker to push code to the repository without the unsigned commits being spotted. Verification can be done by running 'git log --show-signature', which will show and verify signatures. An example of what you should see can be found here Versioning: versioning is a lot easier, now, as tagged releases from 0.8.8.4 onwards will show version-final (eg. 0.8.8.4-final) as their version, and those built between tagged releases will show version-commithash (eg. 0.8.8.4-9088ea1). We expect this will greatly aid in debugging problems, as we can immediately pinpoint the actual version / commit a user is on. Logging: default log levels have been adjusted so that non-critical warnings are now relegated to log-level 1 and above. Apart from the normal reorganisation notifications, the only messages in red that should show up in the daemon are actual errors.
  6. We have slowed down development on the GUI to give us a bit more time to focus on the Monero internals. This is especially important given the recent attack. However, work has not come to a complete halt, and so we wanted to show off a couple of pages from the first start wizard. Bear in mind that these aren't mockups, this is the actual running Qt interface: http://i.imgur.com/jzUvSEP.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/Bj1PTcU.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/oirzi9n.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/ACDmOFJ.jpg
  7. Monero has been added to another exchange, Coin Swap. You can find the market here: https://coin-swap.net/market/XMBTC
Dev Diary
Core: because of all of the rapid changes that we had to merge into master to deal with the aftermath of the block 202612 attack, we have to bring the development branch in sync. At this stage the development branch should not be considered usable until the rebase is complete.
Build: the big change is FreeBSD compatibility, as mentioned above. A more subtle change is that the build will now first look for miniupnpc on the local system, and use that if found. If it fails to find miniupnpc it will fall back to the local copy.
Build: there is a new Makefile target, release-static, that builds statically linked binaries for redistribution. At this stage it forces 64-bit builds, once we have the embedded database working cleanly we can remove this.
Wallet: per-kb fees are nearly complete, and will be deployed to testnet within the next week or so. Once some thorough testing has been done on testnet we can merge this into master, and transaction fees can return to "normal".
Blockchain: this took a bit of a backseat with the blockchain attacks. Now that things are back to some semblance of normality, the first implementation can be written. We have chosen LMDB for the initial implementation, as this will allow us to rapidly write a Berkeley DB interface based off of it (they use similar APIs) and thus have a baseline for performance comparisons.
Core: all non-critical "errors" and warnings have been moved to log-level 1. As a developer, you may find it useful to run log-level 1 or 2 as your default.
Until next week!
submitted by fluffyponyza to Monero [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 https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/releases.
Current release: v1.0 - https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.14.2-uasfsegwit1.0
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):
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6c5zw3/howto_verify_the_signed_uasf_released_binaries/
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 https://bitcoinknots.org.
Get it at bitcoinknots.org. 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 UASFGuide.com 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.

Changelog

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]

Are we overlooking pgp verification of wallet installation files?

I am curious how many people use pgp to verify the new version of their favorite wallet software every time a new version comes out? To me it seems like pgp verification isn't taken very seriously. Most, but not all vendors will put out new pgp signature files with each new release however if you are relatively unaware of security this could mean you are unknowingly missing a very important step. Importing the authors pgp key, downloading the associated signature file and then verifying the executable isn't very obvious to those who aren't security savvy. However it is an obvious security hole and a potential honeypot for anyone looking for some easy coin. One thing I find disturbing is how few of the major wallet developers put any significant effort into educating their users on the first step of securing their hot wallet. Multibit and armory are the only two clients I know of that give any information on pgp verification, but even multibit misses this important step on their "How to install" page. Electrum doesn't even provide a signature file for their linux version instead providing a hyperlink with an md5 hash appended to it. Bitcoin-qt from what I can tell only provides sha256 hashes of their files with zero instruction on how to use them. To me it seems like the pgp step of securing a wallet is looked at as the boring minor tidbit that you have to have that nobody really wants to put time into resulting in most vendors throwing up some hashes/signatures with little to no information on how to use them. I think that all vendors should have a section with instructions on how to verify their software, put this as the second step in getting started with their software right after the download step and make sure to provide pgp signatures for each installer package and not just hashes. For me, not being a security expert, I feel much safer verifying a pgp signature vs checking that a hash matches. With bitcoins being targeted on a daily basis through incredibly creative means this seems to me like a giant gaping hole that could be fought with a very small amount of education. Just a thought.
Edit: because I suck at the grammar Edit: after digging around I found the electrum signature files for linux. There is no direct link to the page from their website but they can be found here: http://download.electrum.org/
submitted by bitmagi to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

GPG instructions and public key list for verifying Bitcoin clients.

I have noticed their is a growing problem of fake bitcoin clients, and I expect the frequency and elaboratness of these fake clients to increase.
Verifying the signatures for these clients will detect if you are receiving anything other than what the signer the of the software signed. The exception to this is if the attacker acquires the signer's private key, which should be a lot more difficult than tricking users to visit the wrong site or hacking servers. This can also be addressed by using multiple signatures per client.
An important part of this process is acquiring the public keys for the sofware signers in a secure manner.
To help with this I have included a signed list of fingerprints and where to acquire the public keys to act as another source to verify the keys used to sign bitcoin clients.
I have also included instructions for verifying the fingerprint list and bitcoin clients.
To deal with the issue that posts and comments on Reddit can be easily modified I suggest other users (especially well known ones) post a signature of the fingerprint list in a comment in this thread, or at least a hash of the fingerprint list (not as secure but still better than nothing).
List of Fingerprints:
+++ Bitcoin-Qt: Signer: Gavin Andresen (CODE SIGNING KEY) [email protected] Fingerprint: 2664 6D99 CBAE C9B8 1982 EF60 29D9 EE6B 1FC7 30C1 Key ID: 1FC730C1 Key Link: bitcoin.org/gavinandresen.asc
Electrum: Signer: ThomasV [email protected] Fingerprint: 6694 D8DE 7BE8 EE56 31BE D950 2BD5 824B 7F94 70E6 Key ID: 7F9470E6 Keyserver: pool.sks-keyservers.net Signer: Animazing [email protected] Fingerprint: 9914 864D FC33 499C 6CA2 BEEA 2245 3004 6955 06FD Key ID: 695506FD Keyserver: pool.sks-keyservers.net
Multibit: Signer: Jim Burton (multibit.org developer) [email protected] Fingerprint: 299C 423C 672F 47F4 756A 6BA4 C197 2AED 79F7 C572 Key ID: 79F7C572 Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu
Armory: Signer: Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) [email protected] Fingerprint: 821F 1229 36BD D565 366A C36A 4AB1 6AEA 9883 2223 Key ID: 98832223 Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu +++
My Key:
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) mQINBFLB9nUBEAC/klZvqQkWP/NUD0pT09PzhKh0xIQ0XM7MxqUZLa1OytF3iUCX /fNwQD5OnSFQoEg1O4bGzrrRb+PiuKCvH19dp7sFVj3q7Dhwfb6EvsX39xqzxCr6 2AQFQ3esz4nNodnQWa48t2ujihaf/vpTn6n7+jCl6a124r+U4wNGiNIEWxLLUNNb ec8S1RcjtTp6Ue/yRpThgJN9e4rj19+vJMqKCiqL03NBZWVoCEkL6iIdjwlQK8/r CpP9m5yAsc8wkelRkZvuLmjJ1GgSFrO0WteGnURMshy59LetaSRyiIDeHaPdV5rk /n3mBv8hsK/39O6H7fYWDx/ZLnZE4rMghcndexIFLhsuPx6FJNATqQ2gHT4ijb8K NlwZ0LatlXyUEMKfC1aroa3/9RkQSf0y0GKS0XrvUWGVRn/X7gk1DRhuaHWuacCf k3w0XZOA2WpWw1w/rjZSeHbKG1w4B2/kWH3K4sXsfcLltlY85zH03HUYSx+leMFc yxiHz60ZfuV2aGjYFPL8dzF6DS106lHz51j608OZkAEO8Xssincii1k/PR1h1y2P AqgrEADzgl52iBbNw+tdnxSAIy/asEyxU/VwkUFjOzSyP7ZmBxg8ss966w2Kl6WE o9R5tkVuUG8WTMTnF0FeMxO9YOqx4KhN9bhP7RjBL7BFTvRXYVVJUGabIQARAQAB tBVkY2M0ZSA8ZGNjNGVAZ214LmNvbT6JAj4EEwECACgFAlLB9nUCGwMFCQlmAYAG CwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJECO6L0dAOWOhsNIQAKUN9Z4e0hM3 DbaUjYJx93JGdJArLmz+Ko10N/lGcao4lCNVA+xM73Ga1GBnPlhPFW9iD2VQocOv tY2PYNsPrHgGlzyMKAMSpZ8364wVEyCHdJVKFORUjhyuJGYfyhDt2iZuzQwxWbmQ 1gmlbiGvxRysmaSW5+M8CDhja/fI8+EOp5NbH/EvHJClul3cO72UBUXBPxRv4Eb+ j8k0Uozob70A3bD894F8bJ9wZ3XBX/9DEkAbvDyW7CxIZwUiCeYTQylH++8S91A1 wL3z35ELdOLzGqwetYY6gSZRwY/W+rewEfPfBDSRjXKOBfhraMBYV1Sdg0IUj10W 2XVAzkqmqaej0T/xTt6aNjFtiH1u18BUpYIcCAAZ6TJ7325bnqnI+0xWFdonyggL +AIX1nzhx5niw8ZkCX0/jlJAx3TXAuxX/Tfy7cVSVi33v0fiwoDb8ZIDBzg0P2uc PUpR13B3AevFpxuAuAFPWfTDOJQmZyn9YNswVOhNb9rfq5bkmaSBlMRefTtUKIjW XjrRhSULPJ73H+R1DNL1Y0vhclnkOVCFRB+VPChkO+6RitGQDTg/Z60fBHpnYiDz sysnsoojLwBGanHO5mZMprxADc9CmeRGRmfHwvx7eJvW1HqN+5JR3Ai+JDlT+IxX RNUQxUbOry4D8TwRn9nBEtumNyNQcBmUuQINBFLB9nUBEACyRFYCrOXxC8yWm92U qPPNa3YC+W17O4rHW/thKTze1/TeZAKTNaIMPCS7iSVBBRbuijG+8NsgFd6W9acC ihMD4VUdFhVPjRGM3HmqzsxudVI4kGlQl8w86pYZu8ceGB4LQcoUFbPmWgXDIszH NV7kIFO/2oCRJ7VIBllUMP97RRdIfDND7EZMWvDveZ40BZCBLfnD9f6VSs4Lgn2C ow/ko01ijnvUxA/BGPJKI7JTLJHbdL//RQwT3AacLSc/etIurY2Ef926XbYYI1gi qboCU/dYUkGG2D+BDcGdukwpksdZZSXPyNhkZQAPPViHuFFtHI3C+FNb5L+lnC0h /dfF73U1lN3jp/VX11U1tIsHJyPjs8aael2UJO7Qy3vgVRM6KOywNNjVRv79Z/rF YHkNzBwXrGKdwV16SdRWjgkzkB4JeNQME096SqrwAEj/j5fwMqHjR8dKqWKDT6s9 V2Z83go3n9kI8JWFh33OksBh/qpKghhwtGWrUsbVcEDOVmUn2ozXvARDzqnNw3DN PcQvzUtasD8hxGHo7fW4TczdtgS3b/DfU2VJo68Fmo1C4eqYX+Ixx05khFCtP7d0 POqX6jIIQqZq8NTea8/M8Xx1YGhR5RpA4vZe7bCLgD2VUXHL43Npmq2nuZ0/7AwY H0hc/y/T+SU70xn28XyWHHLkCwARAQABiQIlBBgBAgAPBQJSwfZ1AhsMBQkJZgGA AAoJECO6L0dAOWOhIcgP/ioKYiJFAsolS4ep1PenCPvQFjvZTq4xJnsubEJ/ERU8 zdgET0Rh5jcCLqRAxQbGW3lVsewR3N+S9Rt3zHApqfZBFg5XJkZxsk0u+0qGPHWA 4oC7U3E4ZwMfVzUDcfKrzD1h0JaiSW1+1qgCh9/YVCUYakR1n/9LgzPP8ekQLTeb nWE+ZQQfeTDgoTNFWZvUlEbh4zcHLvcay78PnK3uT3UbWPyltSxon/eD47s1dt03 P/8nqaXCZhhRZ9N3EbJyudLBgA3ctySSJJSKKQHYynH5qUQqKp4Wq1KY80161xvW FqKwN/Jr4tTpRVZPu8P82cxhwrWJdf1U3/M2F2aIgXbGS4fHbzsLZ+6zZ3AuT4D8 auW55GOrnoF9XzZV6IavtluILUXMjVzF13slo5PKzS8yyJRNxE22krbeEyUum4Zu dDiERxIB6B+RDMM9qvV9svGJoEXG+4ugwkA3R7a6LWApmkvH3eXpULfDN2g5eNcr 5efFMrI/myxmpsP3nUp5EZFJyp8+ZSzIMJ1jSzXH8mHajIGTG49xDyZGpbog3wd2 7aQf5D9WOuKfYZM9MU9PBF+ZgtNrAxWuYJcCOr4WEd/2IjayMWvLxNA/RVW66oVj puaaDc3m3hXg1fwUWv9ZJyMUv7NARLgig3KEMVZiVzos7ZMn9mZNrOk2fnkKpVJB =ufyu -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- 
Signature for fingerprint list:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) owGFk31QFGUcx48XIU/KU0YSZOhHToraHeze3u4tqd2+HZ6g4ks6ZBTLsXdud7eH ewtCV4mp4/hGKmlTQbyEkgoZxpg6kReML0RWaoohOWWN0mhK4WSZje0Zxw0zzfTP 7rPf5zfP7/N8nn22PRyliYyYfDQ9y0La6yNaotYW6hyi5BTkYlmUFJ9BKVMWdZyu mDFjhpYWFbtXlPQLlUztYtEpCXImZPGlogSUVCQLPkGCNGYBy8FiW9Z82/wsyOby poEzWMEPFVicHl50G+xeD1jDXTIBxXEMcJYkgaEpDhiSNgNCmlHgrHgGoCRLAsfh NCBWhgBjBoNos4VysLGZD5LhIEeUXJlQ+C+nwSs700d0N/A+u5ZzC3ZFLvGE97Bk hdfD+5aC8uBdiqiQZYYiQTuCEMdJDFizujuC5swqjQkHI0JzwJImlZBmTWBGMRoI q1pHZHD4MGEwCQU+QS4Ntiz2et0Gn8und4Uyn0ESlGEkShI9/Etqf5jJh4Zhd7NH opEkgoEZx1iwMkYjYCTJAM5QKADNcRSgKGZSnWWogkmTCTJwKzvMFkxCwf+xzStx K6LqNixurugBukRWvOrBe4Zmg9ahSCgV3N5iQZ4GL4oeHDFbHLxPGcI3lLhG8qNB YAw1qtQEagWMsKoGTTgFOE1hwCAkASjFsUCQVgIYE4GG1apJKBjGdxYbPCqHUFSi pWSPVy4PA1NuXgLGAIsEUf2GtAUOh1sdQXA+KFtdZhrwapFl6B/iHywQdD4S2Ywi VkBQlAQjTrPAmnBVMa4iM0b1gVE0AjiluifNZqN6AKhxGDmYhIL/Qg5etI2RydGa iEhNzKjI4N3TaEfrQjf0brJOs692U9vbzb2jMs51uP1Jl/6KXf7NoTEHolxXvvRf SjzbEylrjFvH1jXefbJxd9/tK8u8SVdLC9yv5N88N/v1Cyu7N1deXDPJMeVs8obj b9zvtW84sv9OWeJJ8tXyPX2/N+zqGn+ZnxCdGz++QXqzYGzthSRE7JJaflRu4/01 jqsFuat62ifvHujc8ZhupW1P59OBjoMtgz+crx08mdN/sDkwtUmfLecN2Hb8duuz Lxq6Aztjz3RsWV1d3TJBc4D86cbfuqjvn0iJemqvfk1/ToHQFZhtWrT555eZwh45 +vNj/jX7Fubnd/3adNxf+EhF7sWmMX+Q184dSvygFdFXBF6b2m1KjLvnoKanzEp0 2cWqgX7L2biU8/2xt5LudZ4g4pawCZVpv6T7q1JfaN9Q1xFxP2Z55fiPuo7tvXdd v6m3vrLt+Tk12bGzDn/rr8+puxl4vLsqrnPKmPg51xUZo+tiXKuf2XZ44DLd8t7N weL21tONnY2jKy+MSzi1/1o8sWrQPPPTd1tteW/tTct6fyO2NNWUJ6wT6mPWx9fz 31ml53QTe75a+2HbumVuvZCcC33V0/fFpM07wkRYUh9a0LxzK6mrOuqYChWT6u4M oGkJS2vmNkWdmdWcP5le4ulLbr+Ws+IysX37OyfSt4y70St8vLov9dE/k3Y1zNy4 SyrY/fWzvRMLP8mNrjh1eFvtznXt/wA= =5zDz -----END PGP MESSAGE----- 
Hashes for fingerprint list:
SHA-256: 7A6B9841 355B1127 E5639A9D 7040D81C F395D382 884376C2 31829C63 6FCF1B80
SHA-512: 04A49A60 A1645479 ED0B3CE9 AE32E156 E9768CC2 0D4EF393 814162BE BFA6FAF5 6C520769 C654467F 6B61EBD4 4A5A5C93 9DF81B7D AA468A50 2DD7FFF3 F637A49C
Verifying the fingerprint list:
Save fingerprint list, from the first plus to the last plus, to a text file called fingerprints.txt
Next save my key to a file called dcc4e.asc and my signature to a file called fingerprints.txt.asc
In terminal or command line run:
gpg --import dcc4e.asc gpg --verify fingerprints.txt.asc 
You should see:
Good signature from "dcc4e " 
GPG examples for verifying Bitcoin clients:
Verifying Bitcoin-Qt:
First download, import and check Gavin's key:
Download his key at bitcoin.org/gavinandresen.asc
In terminal or command line run:
gpg --import gavinandresen.asc gpg --fingerprint 
Check that the fingerprint for Gavin's key matches 01CD F462 7A3B 88AA E4A5 71C8 7588 242F BE38 D3A8.
Then download the wallet software and signature.
Verify the signature:
gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc 
You should see:
gpg: Good signature from "Gavin Andresen (CODE SIGNING KEY) " 
The signature for Bitcoin-Qt signs the hash values. So we must compute the hash of the specific downloaded software manually. This example is using the linux version.
gpg --print-md SHA256 bitcoin-0.8.6-linux.tar.gz 
Check that the output matches the associated hash value in SHA256SUMS.asc
Verifying Electrum:
First download, import and check ThomasV's key:
This key can be found at a keyserver.
gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 7F9470E6 gpg --fingerprint 
Check the fingerprint.
Download Electrum and the signature.
Verify the signature:
gpg --verify Electrum-1.9.6.zip.asc 
You should see:
gpg: Good signature from "ThomasV " 
For this example you do not need to manually compute any hash values because the signature is signing the downloaded file directly instead of signing a list of hashes.
submitted by dcc4e to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How to verify software downloads with a cryptographic signature file Part 1 How to do a Quick Install of Gpg4Win with Verification How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet MicroNugget: How to Verify Digital Signatures Keep you Bitcoin Safe from Phishing and Scams. Verifying Electrum Download Signatures via GPG4Win.

bitaddress.org appears to have a versioning system and a PGP signature to confirm the source code hasn't been hacked.. If I save the source code for the page (so I can run it on an offline computer), what steps do I need to take to verify the version I've downloaded matches the signature? Signing and verifying messages with Bitcoin address. bitcoin address generator. Toggle navigation Bitcoin Signature Tool. Sign; Verify; BTC . BTC × Message failed to verify! × Message verified to be from (address wasn't specified) Verify From. Signed Message Bitcoin-QT. Address. Message. Signature. Copy to Sign Page Click here for a tutorial on how to verify the OpenPGP signature! SHA256 hashes of all downloads, signed by Luke Dashjr's PGP key, are available under the "digital signatures" link in the download box. If this link is missing, broken, or fails to verify, do not trust the downloaded files, and contact him immediately. Announcements e-mail list Click the large blue Download Bitcoin Core button to download the Bitcoin Core installer to your desktop. Optional: Verify the release signatures If you know how to use PGP, you should also click the Verify Release Signatures link on the download page to download a signed list of SHA256 file hashes. Bitcoin Electrum Wallet – Sign/Verify Message. In your Bitcoin Electrum wallet go to Tools >> Sign/Verify Message which will open a pop up consisting three fields. Enter your public wallet address for which you wish to sign along with your custom message. Once done click on sign which will generate a signature. Pic Credit: https://bitcointalk

[index] [29601] [18203] [14297] [30620] [22572] [3055] [15199] [30752] [13324] [14754]

How to verify software downloads with a cryptographic signature file Part 1

How to verify software downloads with a cryptographic signature file Part 2 ... How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet - Duration: 22:31. Rex Kneisley 4,912 views. 22:31 ... In this video I show you how to download the Litecoin Core Wallet, also sometimes called the Litecoin Qt wallet. I make a mistake early on in the video when I say I "install" the wallet from terminal. Basic explanation of how to sign and verify a Bitcoin Adress from your Softwarewallet, example client was Bitcoin-qt. Feel free to donate to keep more Tutorials coming: A short guide that demonstrates how keep your Bitcoin safe from scams by taking the time to check the GPG signatures to verify Electrum downloads via GPG4Win. This is an important practice that ... How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet - Duration: 22:31. Rex Kneisley 5,163 views. ... How to sign a file or verify a signature of a file using GPG keychain - Duration: 6:15.

Flag Counter