Litecoin Price Chart (LTC) Coinbase

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]

Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign.
Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that.
In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod.
Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down.
This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks.
Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing.
The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc.
Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone (the lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited) voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to sound8bits [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Ready To Move? Bitcoin Price Prediction From 2009, Hal Finney Predicted Bitcoins Rise! Bitcoin and Crypto Over the Years - Historical Price Perspectives Bitcoin Pulls Back After Massive Price Increase Bitcoin price History 2013-2018. Bitcoin's wave, from 2009 to 2017

Total Bitcoin (sum of all currently existing Bitcoin) 18,508,626 BTC: Market Capitalization (market value of all currently existing Bitcoin) $198,982,468,078 USD: Bitcoin Price (Bitcoin price history charts) 1 BTC = $ 10,750.8 USD (2020-10-05 17:12:54 UTC) bitasset: 10,745.98 USD (2020-10-05 17:14:03 UTC) hitbtc: 10,725.68 USD (2020-10-05 17:14 ... Explore the top 50 cryptocurrencies with Coinbase, including cryptocurrency price charts, crypto descriptions, and the latest price of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin. BTC--Bitcoin Cash. BCH--Ethereum. ETH--Ethereum Classic. ETC--0x. ZRX--USD Coin. USDC--View all. This content is being provided to you for informational purposes only. The content has been prepared by third parties not affiliated with Coinbase Inc or any of its affiliates and Coinbase is not responsible for its content. This content ... Graph showing the value of 1 Bitcoin from 2009-2013. Created at bitcoincharts.com. ... and dodge the transaction fee in the process. ... Graph showing the value of 1 Bitcoin from 2009-2013 ... IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: All content provided herein our website, hyperlinked sites, associated applications, forums, blogs, social media accounts and other platforms (“Site”) is for your general information only, procured from third party sources. We make no warranties of any kind in relation to our content, including but not limited to accuracy and updatedness.

[index] [5884] [31082] [29473] [3579] [10744] [32067] [33900] [22574] [10975] [17041]

Bitcoin Ready To Move? Bitcoin Price Prediction From 2009, Hal Finney Predicted Bitcoins Rise!

Bitcoin Chart Timelapse 2011- March 2019 - Duration: 5:22. SkylerBTC 2,532 views. ... BITCOIN Price Movement 2009 to 2017 - Duration: 7:39. Bitcoin Sinhala ICO reviews 34,008 views. This is Bitcoin chart from 2013-2018. BITCOIN Price Movement 2009 to 2017 - Duration: 7:39. Bitcoin Sinhala ICO reviews 32,046 views. 7:39. Blockchain Technology Explained (2 Hour Course) - Duration: 1:54:54. BITCOIN Price Movement 2009 to 2017 - Duration: 7:39. Bitcoin Sinhala ICO reviews ... Sound Waves Hearing - 3. Waveform Waveform Graph - Duration: 0:55. macProVideoDotCom 4,077 ... Subscribe to the TDV newsletter here: https://dollarvigilante.com/ Find Out More About Bitcoin: https://dollarvigilante.com/bitcoin-subscription?cfid=56 Get ...

#