Board Member Olivier Janssen Thrashes Bitcoin Foundation ...
Board Member Olivier Janssen Thrashes Bitcoin Foundation ...
Recently Elected Board Member Olivier Janssens Reveals All ...
Oliver janssens und die probleme der bitcoin-stiftung ...
Interview with Olivier Janssens - Bitcoinist.com
Olivier Janssens: Bitcoin Foundation has fired 90% of ...
Olivier Janssens: "To the Bitcoin Core people: Transaction fees are rising fast. How will people with less money (or doing small transactions) be able to use their own private wallets instead of being forced on exchanges and centralized solutions? (Not Lightning. Same fees to open channels & alpha)"
Let's have a show of hands - Who supports the IFP (dev-tax)?
Or, more importantly, who is against it? It seems to me that almost the entire community is against this major change but it would be good if this is made clear in one place. It seems also that most of the people against this are well-known OG bitcoiners. If you are against the current proposal as outlined by BitcoinABC HERE please make a top-level comment below (i.e. not a reply to another comment) stating:
If you run a BCH business, piece of infrastructure or project please add:
- from [INSERT PROJECT NAME]
I will add all names to a list below. It is important to know this as this is what BCH is potentially set to lose should this go through. My hope is that if miners can see how much of the ecosystem is against this then they will reconsider.
We must become organised to stop a corruption of the BCH protocol
Yesterday BitcoinABC released version 0.21 of their client. In this release a consensus rule is included that requires all BCH miners to pay5% of their block subsidyand5% of the fees they receive to a set of up to 4 BCH addresses. These addresses are controlled by:
This significant change in the protocol is to be activated using a BIP9 method. It will activate when at least 66% of 2016 blocks are produced by miners running their new release. There is no end date for the tax once it has been activated, so it will go on indefinitely unless manually removed with another hardfork. This is occurring in the context of an almost unanimous opposition by the BCH ecosystem of businesses, miners, projects and users. This is something that they are fully aware of and have decided to ignore and push ahead anyway. While it is of course true that the community needs to make sure there is sufficient funding for the projects within the BCH ecosystem that deserve it, and that the funding is provided voluntarily, there are currently numerous efforts under way to create software that makes this as simple as possible. For example, Flipstarter, U-DID, , and pool Donations. There is also a significant amount of will in the community to provide funding if sensible and concrete proposals are put forward. This change is not only a fundamental change to the properties of Bitcoin as described in the original whitepaper, but has the high likelihood of causing a major split if the entire ecosystem does not work towards stopping it from happening. Many of us are now organising an effort to oppose this fundamental change. We need as much of the ecosystem as possible to put their effort into stopping this if you don't want this to happen, so please join us at:
NOTE: I'm trying my best but because of the sheer volume of tidbits popping up every day, this post might ocasionally miss some updates. Please feel free to point it out in the comments whenever you feel there is information missing in the post, thanks! A note on recovering funds: We have no information on how to recover fiat/bitcoins/goxcoins yet and MtGox has only given very vague statements so far. It is speculated Mark Karpeles (CEO of MtGox) is currently figuring out what to do and not flying to the Bahamas with our money. It is advisable to have patience and wait for new developments on the subject for the time being. March 26th, 2014
Following its application for commencement of civil rehabilitation, MtGox Co., Ltd. consulted with the metropolitan police department with regard to the disappearance of bitcoins which is one of the causes for said application. MtGox Co., Ltd. hereby announces that it has submitted necessary electronic records and other related documents. MtGox Co., Ltd. intends to fully cooperate with each competent authority. Further, MtGox Co., Ltd. continues to make efforts to clarify facts as quickly as possible and to recover from damages.
Match 25th, 2014 A new rumor has surfaced twitter, currently unsubstantiated, from @CanarslanEren who according to his previous tweets would have previously either guessed correctly or know in advance about the recovered 200K BTC (emphasis mine):
Within a few days(or hours) @MtGox will announce that "they found ~670.000 #bitcoin & may release some BTCs to the victims. @PatronaPartners
There's a new update on mtgox.com confirming the previous story of having recovered 200K BTC that were thought lost. Key points:
On March 7, 2014, MtGox Co., Ltd. confirmed that an oldn format wallet which was used prior to June 2011 held a balance of approximately 200,000 BTC (199,999.99 BTC)
For security reasons, the 200,000 BTC which were at first on the 7th moved to online wallets were moved between the 14 th and the 15th to offline wallets.
The bitcoins held today by MtGox Co., Ltd. amount to a total of approximately 202,000 BTC, including the above 200,000 BTC and the approximately 2,000 BTC which existed prior to the application for commencement of a civil rehabilitation proceeding.
March 20th, 2014
Several users were reporting issues with the balance-checking tool online at mtgox.com, namely that bank transfers and transactions stuck in progress were not showing. This is now apparently fixed and balances seem to have been accordingly updated. Thread here.
In line with the blockchain movements we've seen for the past few weeks and the respective MtGox API activity, finally a japanese news article appeared where MtGox lawyers announce MtGox has found and owns 200K BTC, translation, courtesy of h1d:
Bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox which collapsed in February announced on 20th that they have found they're still in possession of the 200,000 BTC out of the 850,000 BTC that was reported to be lost. According to the lawyer, they found them on the 7th of this month by searching through a storage on the internet called a "wallet" which was being used by MtGox up until June 2011. MtGox has reported that they have lost almost all of the 850,000 BTC owned while filing for bankruptcy protection on February 28th.
A new update on mtgox.com is now online: account holders can now provide their login authentication data on the site to retrieve the last status of their wallets for convenience. It would appear that this update is legimitate, Redditcoinstates:
I just called the MtGox call centre in Japan - they confirmed that the login has been put there by "legal" and they have not been hacked. I called this number from the original banckrupty announcement (I called from Australia - we are only 2 hours ahead): +81 3-4588-3922. A nice man with an American accent said that the login has been put there by "legal" for users to check their balances and that the website has not been hacked.
Redditcoin asked for transaction history data as well:
I called the number again (about an hour later) - again, absolutely no waiting - I called again to ask about my transaction history. The same man answered, with the American accent (although sounded Japanese), who spoke impeccable English. He said that the transaction history is still unavailable because the courts still have to "polish" it (whatever that means). I said I needed it for taxation purposes. He replied by saying he will "check on this, and post an update on the website soon".
As for the balance data that can now be retrieved on mtgox.com, the site notes (emphasis mine):
This balance confirmation service is provided on this site only for the convenience of all users. Please be aware that confirming the balance on this site does not constitute a filing of rehabilitation claims under the civil rehabilitation procedure and note that the balance amounts shown on this site should also not be considered an acknowledgment by MtGox Co., Ltd. of the amount of any rehabilitation claims of users. Rehabilitation claims under a civil rehabilitation procedure become confirmed from a filing which is followed by an investigation procedure. The method for filing claims will be published on this site as soon as we will be in situation to announce it.
The MtGox API which used to list pending transactions has been removed today. In the past few weeks, this API had shown that the hundreds of thousands of BTC moving in the blockchain connected with MtGox wallets could still belong to Gox. Thread.
we are working on resuming service, can't say how soon it'll be
While the authenticity is still in question, if true this would be in line with all the rumors and hints we've seen up until now. March 15, 2014
The hundreds of thousands of coins moving in the blockchain that MtGox allegedly still own have been spotted doing something new: the outputs are now merging in new addresses of 2K BTC each. This was first spotted in this thread and later confirmed here. As usual, we have zero indications of what this means yet. -Mahnspeculates:
The only thing I can imagine myself is that whoever is doing the splitting decided 50 BTC was too little or would take too long and switched to bigger outputs per address.
New movement in the MtGox order book as reported by their still online API has been detected. Thread.
March 14th, 2014 There's a new update on mtgox.com concerning their Chapter 15 US filing. It contains no new information other than the confirmation of the news that appeared on March 11th. March 12th, 2014
MtGox US subsidiary assets have been temporarily frozen by US Judge. Story here.
"On February 7, 2014, all bitcoin withdrawals were halted by MtGox due to the theft or disappearance of hundreds of thousands of bitcoins owned by MtGox customers as well as MtGox itself. The cause of the theft or disappearance is the subject of intensive investigation by me and others -- as of the present time I believe it was caused or related to a defect or "bug" in the bitcoin software algorithm, which was exploited by one or more persons who had "hacked" the bitcoin network. On February 24, 2014, MtGox suspended all trading after internal investigations discovered a loss of 744,408 bitcoins presumably from this method of theft. These events caused among others MtGox to become insolvent and to file the Japan Proceeding."
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
"You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
"Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
"The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
Und mit den aktuellen Plänen von Olivier Janssens und anderen Mitgliedern der Bitcoin-Community kann die Zukunft von Bitcoin endlich so gestaltet werden, wie es von der Bitcoin-Stiftung hätte getan werden sollen. Transparenz und Dezentralisierung werden sich durchsetzen, und die einzige Möglichkeit, dies zu erreichen, tun wir alle. The Bitcoin Foundation has not commented on the issue. Olivier Janssens is a bitcoin entrepreneur who has invested over $2 million in bitcoin startups. Together with Jim Harper, a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, he joined the board of the Bitcoin Foundation on March 2nd, 2015, after a long and problematic election. In a shocker posted late last night, Olivier Janssens, the recently elected board member of the Bitcoin Foundation, who promised to bring transparency and reform to the Foundation, has posted a bombshell on Reddit. The post alleges that the Bitcoin Foundation has run out of money and has fired 90% of its staff, some of whom will remain on as volunteers. Olivier Janssens, the newly elected Bitcoin Foundation board member, recently took a revolting stand against the organization.. The celebrated Bitcoin adopter accused the foundation of “lacking transparency of its actions,” while exemplifying their decision to ignore recording the board meetings. “We [him and Jim Harper] followed Robert’s rules of orders, and everyone else basically ... And with the current plans set in motion by Olivier Janssens and other members of the Bitcoin community, the future of Bitcoin can finally be shaped in the way it should have been done by the Bitcoin Foundation. Transparency and decentralization will prevail, and the only way to make it happen is by all of us doing so.
Bitcoin Technical Analysis - Wave Trajectories possible Today. Let's get prepared!
Roger Ver, a highly visible figure in the Bitcoin community, is teaming up with entrepreneur and cryptocurrency enthusiast Olivier Janssens to create a brand new country. Here’s the catch: this ... Lighthouse, the crowdfunding platform led by Bitcoin core developer Mike Hearn, was awarded the $90,000 bounty today that Bitcoin entrepreneur Olivier Janssens presented in May as a challenge to ... Online Wallet: https://goo.gl/s6wMpq Offline Wallet: https://amzn.to/2LyYx3o Hast du dir auch schon immer gewünscht, von Zuhause aus Geld zu verdienen, ohne etwas dafür zu tun? Ich habe nun ... Oliver Janssens and the Bitcoin Foundation’s Woes Video sources: ... Blockhain 3million wallets,Released MtGox stolen BTC,50 million users can send btc with Telebit - Duration: 3 minutes, 32 ... 4:09 - Olivier Janssens' Tweet 6:05 - Flipstarter.cash fundraising for Bitcoin Cash Node 8:04 - Censoring posts about Silk Road 9:25 - The Jason King story 10:28 - New video platforms: LBRY.tv ...