The Debate over Bitcoin Expansion(I）
The article was first published in the Babbitt Forum and was authorized by Chang Yong to publish by Zhikuang University._DJMINER
This article combs the contention of Bitcoin expansion, which is the most comprehensive, detailed and objective article about Bitcoin expansion. After reading this article, you will have a more comprehensive and objective understanding of bifurcation events.
In order to view the reference links conveniently, the link directory of the full text is sorted out at the end of the article, and the serial number of the reference links is marked in the body of the article, which is convenient for readers to consult.
The following is the text.
The Bitcoin expansion debate was exposed to the public from May 2015 to November 2017, when the New York Consensus was suspended. It took two and a half years. According to the term "one day in the currency circle, one year in the world", it could be regarded as a centenary war of password currency.
Bitcoin expansion is blocked, resulting in congestion and high handling fees, which triggers a surge in competing currencies, crazy ICO, bifurcation tide, public chain war, TPS leap forward... Especially the birth of BCH. A simple problem that can be solved by a few lines of code in Nakamoto's view evolved into a long-lasting war that eventually changed the direction of Bitcoin development and the pattern of password currency. This is something that everyone had never expected._DJMINER
The war is very complex, so far, the origin of the expansion debate is still unclear. Even those who have experienced it know only the parts around them, and it is difficult to see the evolution of the whole situation. Thus, based on different standpoints, contexts and purposes, there are often contradictory statements about the facts and causes and consequences of the expansion debate, which often end in fruitless battles.
This paper tries to clarify the dispute of expansion in order to resolve the dispute, and also help to understand the logic of the development of cryptographic currency, and better explore the future of cryptographic currency. Relevant parties are also welcome to review, criticize and correct them.
Note: This paper tries to restore the history of the contention for expansion. The author himself agrees with the development direction of block expansion and BCH. In view of the fact that the Bitcoin community is divided into three different routes: BTC, BCH and BSV, the author also suggests that the reader refer to two documents: The Long Road to SegWit written by Miao Yongquan from Core's perspective: How the biggest protocol upgrade of Bitcoin becomes a reality . 】 (Note: There are two applications here, corresponding to the link directory at the end of the chain, the same below) and "Bitcoin Expansion Dispute: The Birth of Double Chains" written by Sun Valley on behalf of BSV perspective._DJMINER
The "expansion" of the Bitcoin expansion debate means the "expansion of blocks" to raise the upper limit of blocks, which is the core of the war. Isolated witnesses proposed by the opponent of block expansion can also achieve a 30% increase in transaction volume per block, while lightning networks outside the main chain can handle more transactions, which is not the focus of the debate. In order to avoid confusion, the "expansion" in this paper refers to the "block expansion" to raise the block upper limit, rather than various measures with expansion effect.
Nakamoto's original code had a maximum capacity limit of 32M per block. It is said that this code originated from his borrowing from other projects and was originally limited to 32M. In the first two years after Bitcoin's operation, the actual block size was less than 0.5K. Without directly explaining the reasons, Zhongbencong set a block capacity limit of up to 1M in July 2010.
On October 3, 2010, Jeff Garzik, an early developer, posted a proposal to increase the capacity limit to 7.1M. But the actual size of the block is still about 0.5K at this time. Zhongbencong replies that immediate modification will lead to incompatibility of the software version (i.e. hard bifurcation later). He suggests adding conditions when updating the code, and increasing the block limit at a certain block height, so that the expansion can be completed naturally and the incompatibility (bifurcation) problem can be solved. Question.
In Nakamoto's view, the transaction volume was very small at that time and there was no need to raise the restriction, but we should prepare for the future growth of the transaction volume. When the block is not full, we should upgrade the code in advance to increase the block capacity. At that time, no one felt any problem. But in 2015 it triggered a far-reaching expansion debate._DJMINER
In December 2010, WikiLeaks announced its acceptance of Bitcoin donations. Nakamoto believed that it "stabbed the honeycomb" and then withdrew from "public life", handing over the rights to develop Bitcoin to his trusted Gavin Andresen, who maintained private communications with Gavin for some time.
The first thing Gavin did when he took over development management was decentralization, giving code development management to four other developers. In April 2014, he transferred his "Chief Developer" status and authority to Wladimir van der Laan, resigned as the core defender of Bitcoin, focused on software development, and retained only the status of "Chief Scientist" of the Bitcoin Foundation.
Mike Hearn, chief developer of Bitcoinj, argues that these core developers are not suitable for management. They are trying to get the ducks on the shelf, just to ensure that Gavin's project can continue when something happens. But he stressed that Gregory Maxwell, one of the four developers, had unusual ideas: "He once claimed that he had mathematically proved that Bitcoin could not exist. The bigger problem is that he does not believe in Nakamoto's original idea. Mike emphasizes that this point at least illustrates the particularity of Gregory Maxwell in Bitcoin Core, which may be the key to understanding the expansion debate.
In August 2014, Adam Back, the core developer Gregory Maxwell, and entrepreneur and investor Austin Hill, together with core developers Pieter Wuille and Matt Corallo, founded Blockstream, a Bitcoin technology company. The company focuses on side-chain technology, an alternative block chain that can be effectively linked to Bitcoin.At the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2016, Blockstream received $21 million in seed round investment and $55 million in A round financing, respectively. According to Gregory Maxwell, Blockstream was created for the development of Bitcoin.
Jeff Garzik's expansion posts were lifted again in February 2013, when the block has reached 150 K, expansion should be considered. Thereafter, discussions began on such topics as block caps, garbage trading, hard bifurcation and handling fees.
In January 2015, the actual size of the block has reached 0.3M. Considering the development and testing cycle, the expansion problem has become very urgent. However, within the core development team of Bitcoin, there has been no consensus on block expansion. In early May 2015, Gavin publicly made a formal proposal to expand the block limit to 20M on March 1, 2016. However, this proposal has not been supported by core development leaders.
In letters signed by core Bitcoin developers Wladimir van der Laan, Cory Fields, Luke Dashjr, Jonas Schnelli, Gregory Maxwell and several businesses, including Blockstream, the signers claimed to be committed to the development of Bitcoin and to serving the Bitcoin community, having completed more than 50 code upgrades in the past five years. 。 Given the importance of Bitcoin, they need to consider expansion on the premise of security.
In this signature letter, there is a lack of key developers supporting expansion: Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik. This implies a serious divergence among developers on the issue of expansion.
In response to Gavin's expansion proposal, Jeff Garzik proposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP100, suggesting that the mine should vote on the chain and that more than 75% of the calculation agreed that the expansion could be achieved. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn proposed BIP101, which should be expanded to 2M and then doubled every two years. Beyond the Bitcoin Core version, Gavin and Mike began to implement 20M expansion and BIP101 in the Bitcoin XT node version. Bitcoin XT is Gavin's Core-compatible full-node version of Bitcoin, which is becoming a competitive or alternative version of Core in order to expand.
For Gavin's proposal, the main objection that the public saw came from China's mines, and Gavin went to China specifically to win support for the mines. At that time, China accounted for four of the top five mines in the world. Most of China's mining ponds believe that China's network bandwidth is insufficient, and the synchronization delay of large blocks is greater. 20M blocks lead to the disadvantage of Chinese miners in mining compared with foreign countries. Therefore, in June 2015, five major Chinese mines, Antpool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW.com and Huobi.com, reached consensus, supported BIP100, opposed BIP101 and agreed to expand the block to 8M.
However, the real resistance to expansion does not come from miners , but from within developers. In his May 2015 proposal, Gavin mentioned two key points that were later well known against expansion:
1) Lightning networks and side chains can solve the problem of capacity expansion.
2) Block enlargement requires higher bandwidth and storage, leading to node centralization.
Obviously, Gavin's extension proposal has met with opposition in the developer's internal discussions, but it has not been exposed to the public. It was not miners who succeeded in blocking Gavin Bitcoin's expansion plan, but the "SegWit + Lightning" (or SW + LN) development route proposed by some core developers: by implementing SegWit, the transaction signature was separated from the transaction itself and placed outside the block.
1) Increase the number of transactions that block accommodates;
2) Eliminate the scalability technical problems encountered in deploying lightning networks;
3) Lightning networks can accommodate more transactions.
In this way, there is no need for block expansion.
In February 2015, Dryja and Poon published Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Offline Instant Payment, the Lightning Network White Paper. Lightning Network attracted attention at the Hong Kong Conference on Capacity Expansion in December 2015. In order to solve the problem that affects the extension of lightning network and achieve partial expansion effect, Core proposed the Segwit scheme in December 2015. Subsequently, Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream CTO) wrote the lightning network into the bitcoin roadmap, forming a "isolated witness + lightning network" route. However, at this time, Core did not publicly express that this route will completely replace block expansion, did not explicitly oppose block expansion, but only stressed the need for safe and prudent expansion.
So far, Gavin's block expansion plan and the divergence among core developers of Blockstream, which dominates Bitcoin development, have formed.
In the second half of 2015, as the median actual capacity of the block increased from 0.3M in May when Gavin suggested expansion to 0.7M in December, the attention of the expansion problem in the community increased rapidly. First of all, it is reflected in the two important forums of Bitcoin: Bitcointalk. org founded by Nakamoto and Bitcoin edition of Reddit. Theymos served as administrator of these forums in 2015.
In August 2015, the expansion of Bitcoin XT in the main push block caused a heated discussion in the r/bitcoin version of Reddit. Theymos thinks r/bitcoin is in chaos and announces its regulation. Theymos emphasizes that Bitcoin XT is a split of Bitcoin Core and will be an altcoin. He opposes this split and forbids discussion of expansion related issues, publishing Bitcoin XT related content and blocking related accounts. (Note: For comments on core speech control, see: and
As a free-spirited, de-centralized and anti-regulatory Bitcoin community, Theymos's speeches and regulatory actions have been fiercely criticized and resisted, but Core's core developers support Theymos. Speech control, especially the block expansion and the suppression of Bitcoin XT supporters, has been persisted in the forum.
In order to confront the speech control, we need to get more space for discussion. Roger Ver's bitcoin.com CTO@Magma Hindenburg created the r/btc version of Reddit. Subsequently, a large number of supporters of Bitcoin expansion moved from r/bitcoin to r/btc. At present, the users of r/bitcoin version are 1000k, and the users of r/btc version are 254k. The r/btc version became the main version of BCH on Reddit after the birth of BCH. This also confuses many newcomers. Why is the BTC version all about bch? But the r/bit coincast version only has 43.3k users, and the r/bch version only has 2.5k users? This is due to historical reasons for expansion.
In this media war, Core gained absolute advantage by controlling bitcointalk.org and reddit/r/bitcoin, as well as bitcoin.org. (The actual control of Bitcoin.org is in @Cobra and is a core supporter until 2017. But in the second half of 2017, he began to criticize Core's autocracy and turned to the neutrality of BTC and BCH. Even Coinbase, the largest and most famous start-up company in the United States, was removed from the Bitcoin website and banned by the forum because it was on the "wrong" side.
However, the ultimate fatal blow to Bitcoin XT is the collapse of the interior of Bitcoin XT under pressure. In January 2016, Mike Hearn announced that Bitcoin was dead!
Mike, a senior developer of Bitcoin, worked with Gavin to promote Bitcoin XT. Mike was desperate for 1) Core and Blockstream control over Bitcoin development rights, 2) Theymos control over community voice rights, and 3) the loyalty of Chinese miners to Core who had the advantage.
Mike thinks that the decentralized currency experiment of bitcoin has failed. Because the system has been completely controlled by a few people, it has become congested and expensive, unable to compete with the traditional financial system, and the channel to let the community know the truth has been completely controlled, which makes people pay no attention to the real problems, but attack and ask questions. Question person.
Mike believes that Bitcoin Core has adopted a procrastination strategy for expansion and is very effective. The most common reason miners and startups reject Bitcoin XT is that "we are waiting for Bitcoin Core to expand in December". Core's two "expansion conferences" in August and December 2015 were unsuccessful. At this time, Coinbase and Bitcoin China, the main expansion companies, wake up like a dream and find themselves fooled.
Although Mike is still hopeful about the emergence of Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited, he has lost confidence in the difficulties and declared that the foundation of Bitcoin has collapsed. He has sold all the Bitcoins and left Bitcoin altogether.
Mike's announcement immediately made him a public enemy of the Bitcoin community, causing considerable damage to Gavin's reputation and expansion path. Bitcoin XT's expansion version failed._DJMINER
This article combs the contention of Bitcoin expansion, which is the most comprehensive, detailed and objective article about Bitcoin expansion. After reading this article, you will have a more comprehensive and objective understanding of bifurcation events.
In order to view the reference links conveniently, the link directory of the full text is sorted out at the end of the article, and the serial number of the reference links is marked in the body of the article, which is convenient for readers to consult.
The following is the text.
The Bitcoin expansion debate was exposed to the public from May 2015 to November 2017, when the New York Consensus was suspended. It took two and a half years. According to the term "one day in the currency circle, one year in the world", it could be regarded as a centenary war of password currency.
Bitcoin expansion is blocked, resulting in congestion and high handling fees, which triggers a surge in competing currencies, crazy ICO, bifurcation tide, public chain war, TPS leap forward... Especially the birth of BCH. A simple problem that can be solved by a few lines of code in Nakamoto's view evolved into a long-lasting war that eventually changed the direction of Bitcoin development and the pattern of password currency. This is something that everyone had never expected._DJMINER
The war is very complex, so far, the origin of the expansion debate is still unclear. Even those who have experienced it know only the parts around them, and it is difficult to see the evolution of the whole situation. Thus, based on different standpoints, contexts and purposes, there are often contradictory statements about the facts and causes and consequences of the expansion debate, which often end in fruitless battles.
This paper tries to clarify the dispute of expansion in order to resolve the dispute, and also help to understand the logic of the development of cryptographic currency, and better explore the future of cryptographic currency. Relevant parties are also welcome to review, criticize and correct them.
Note: This paper tries to restore the history of the contention for expansion. The author himself agrees with the development direction of block expansion and BCH. In view of the fact that the Bitcoin community is divided into three different routes: BTC, BCH and BSV, the author also suggests that the reader refer to two documents: The Long Road to SegWit written by Miao Yongquan from Core's perspective: How the biggest protocol upgrade of Bitcoin becomes a reality . 】 (Note: There are two applications here, corresponding to the link directory at the end of the chain, the same below) and "Bitcoin Expansion Dispute: The Birth of Double Chains" written by Sun Valley on behalf of BSV perspective._DJMINER
Reasons for expansion
The "expansion" of the Bitcoin expansion debate means the "expansion of blocks" to raise the upper limit of blocks, which is the core of the war. Isolated witnesses proposed by the opponent of block expansion can also achieve a 30% increase in transaction volume per block, while lightning networks outside the main chain can handle more transactions, which is not the focus of the debate. In order to avoid confusion, the "expansion" in this paper refers to the "block expansion" to raise the block upper limit, rather than various measures with expansion effect.
Nakamoto's original code had a maximum capacity limit of 32M per block. It is said that this code originated from his borrowing from other projects and was originally limited to 32M. In the first two years after Bitcoin's operation, the actual block size was less than 0.5K. Without directly explaining the reasons, Zhongbencong set a block capacity limit of up to 1M in July 2010.
On October 3, 2010, Jeff Garzik, an early developer, posted a proposal to increase the capacity limit to 7.1M. But the actual size of the block is still about 0.5K at this time. Zhongbencong replies that immediate modification will lead to incompatibility of the software version (i.e. hard bifurcation later). He suggests adding conditions when updating the code, and increasing the block limit at a certain block height, so that the expansion can be completed naturally and the incompatibility (bifurcation) problem can be solved. Question.
In Nakamoto's view, the transaction volume was very small at that time and there was no need to raise the restriction, but we should prepare for the future growth of the transaction volume. When the block is not full, we should upgrade the code in advance to increase the block capacity. At that time, no one felt any problem. But in 2015 it triggered a far-reaching expansion debate._DJMINER
Accidental dilemma of expansion
In December 2010, WikiLeaks announced its acceptance of Bitcoin donations. Nakamoto believed that it "stabbed the honeycomb" and then withdrew from "public life", handing over the rights to develop Bitcoin to his trusted Gavin Andresen, who maintained private communications with Gavin for some time.
The first thing Gavin did when he took over development management was decentralization, giving code development management to four other developers. In April 2014, he transferred his "Chief Developer" status and authority to Wladimir van der Laan, resigned as the core defender of Bitcoin, focused on software development, and retained only the status of "Chief Scientist" of the Bitcoin Foundation.
Mike Hearn, chief developer of Bitcoinj, argues that these core developers are not suitable for management. They are trying to get the ducks on the shelf, just to ensure that Gavin's project can continue when something happens. But he stressed that Gregory Maxwell, one of the four developers, had unusual ideas: "He once claimed that he had mathematically proved that Bitcoin could not exist. The bigger problem is that he does not believe in Nakamoto's original idea. Mike emphasizes that this point at least illustrates the particularity of Gregory Maxwell in Bitcoin Core, which may be the key to understanding the expansion debate.
In August 2014, Adam Back, the core developer Gregory Maxwell, and entrepreneur and investor Austin Hill, together with core developers Pieter Wuille and Matt Corallo, founded Blockstream, a Bitcoin technology company. The company focuses on side-chain technology, an alternative block chain that can be effectively linked to Bitcoin.At the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2016, Blockstream received $21 million in seed round investment and $55 million in A round financing, respectively. According to Gregory Maxwell, Blockstream was created for the development of Bitcoin.
Jeff Garzik's expansion posts were lifted again in February 2013, when the block has reached 150 K, expansion should be considered. Thereafter, discussions began on such topics as block caps, garbage trading, hard bifurcation and handling fees.
In January 2015, the actual size of the block has reached 0.3M. Considering the development and testing cycle, the expansion problem has become very urgent. However, within the core development team of Bitcoin, there has been no consensus on block expansion. In early May 2015, Gavin publicly made a formal proposal to expand the block limit to 20M on March 1, 2016. However, this proposal has not been supported by core development leaders.
In letters signed by core Bitcoin developers Wladimir van der Laan, Cory Fields, Luke Dashjr, Jonas Schnelli, Gregory Maxwell and several businesses, including Blockstream, the signers claimed to be committed to the development of Bitcoin and to serving the Bitcoin community, having completed more than 50 code upgrades in the past five years. 。 Given the importance of Bitcoin, they need to consider expansion on the premise of security.
In this signature letter, there is a lack of key developers supporting expansion: Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik. This implies a serious divergence among developers on the issue of expansion.
In response to Gavin's expansion proposal, Jeff Garzik proposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP100, suggesting that the mine should vote on the chain and that more than 75% of the calculation agreed that the expansion could be achieved. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn proposed BIP101, which should be expanded to 2M and then doubled every two years. Beyond the Bitcoin Core version, Gavin and Mike began to implement 20M expansion and BIP101 in the Bitcoin XT node version. Bitcoin XT is Gavin's Core-compatible full-node version of Bitcoin, which is becoming a competitive or alternative version of Core in order to expand.
For Gavin's proposal, the main objection that the public saw came from China's mines, and Gavin went to China specifically to win support for the mines. At that time, China accounted for four of the top five mines in the world. Most of China's mining ponds believe that China's network bandwidth is insufficient, and the synchronization delay of large blocks is greater. 20M blocks lead to the disadvantage of Chinese miners in mining compared with foreign countries. Therefore, in June 2015, five major Chinese mines, Antpool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW.com and Huobi.com, reached consensus, supported BIP100, opposed BIP101 and agreed to expand the block to 8M.
However, the real resistance to expansion does not come from miners , but from within developers. In his May 2015 proposal, Gavin mentioned two key points that were later well known against expansion:
1) Lightning networks and side chains can solve the problem of capacity expansion.
2) Block enlargement requires higher bandwidth and storage, leading to node centralization.
Obviously, Gavin's extension proposal has met with opposition in the developer's internal discussions, but it has not been exposed to the public. It was not miners who succeeded in blocking Gavin Bitcoin's expansion plan, but the "SegWit + Lightning" (or SW + LN) development route proposed by some core developers: by implementing SegWit, the transaction signature was separated from the transaction itself and placed outside the block.
1) Increase the number of transactions that block accommodates;
2) Eliminate the scalability technical problems encountered in deploying lightning networks;
3) Lightning networks can accommodate more transactions.
In this way, there is no need for block expansion.
In February 2015, Dryja and Poon published Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Offline Instant Payment, the Lightning Network White Paper. Lightning Network attracted attention at the Hong Kong Conference on Capacity Expansion in December 2015. In order to solve the problem that affects the extension of lightning network and achieve partial expansion effect, Core proposed the Segwit scheme in December 2015. Subsequently, Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream CTO) wrote the lightning network into the bitcoin roadmap, forming a "isolated witness + lightning network" route. However, at this time, Core did not publicly express that this route will completely replace block expansion, did not explicitly oppose block expansion, but only stressed the need for safe and prudent expansion.
So far, Gavin's block expansion plan and the divergence among core developers of Blockstream, which dominates Bitcoin development, have formed.
Speech Control and the Failure of Bitcoin XT
In the second half of 2015, as the median actual capacity of the block increased from 0.3M in May when Gavin suggested expansion to 0.7M in December, the attention of the expansion problem in the community increased rapidly. First of all, it is reflected in the two important forums of Bitcoin: Bitcointalk. org founded by Nakamoto and Bitcoin edition of Reddit. Theymos served as administrator of these forums in 2015.
In August 2015, the expansion of Bitcoin XT in the main push block caused a heated discussion in the r/bitcoin version of Reddit. Theymos thinks r/bitcoin is in chaos and announces its regulation. Theymos emphasizes that Bitcoin XT is a split of Bitcoin Core and will be an altcoin. He opposes this split and forbids discussion of expansion related issues, publishing Bitcoin XT related content and blocking related accounts. (Note: For comments on core speech control, see: and
As a free-spirited, de-centralized and anti-regulatory Bitcoin community, Theymos's speeches and regulatory actions have been fiercely criticized and resisted, but Core's core developers support Theymos. Speech control, especially the block expansion and the suppression of Bitcoin XT supporters, has been persisted in the forum.
In order to confront the speech control, we need to get more space for discussion. Roger Ver's bitcoin.com CTO@Magma Hindenburg created the r/btc version of Reddit. Subsequently, a large number of supporters of Bitcoin expansion moved from r/bitcoin to r/btc. At present, the users of r/bitcoin version are 1000k, and the users of r/btc version are 254k. The r/btc version became the main version of BCH on Reddit after the birth of BCH. This also confuses many newcomers. Why is the BTC version all about bch? But the r/bit coincast version only has 43.3k users, and the r/bch version only has 2.5k users? This is due to historical reasons for expansion.
In this media war, Core gained absolute advantage by controlling bitcointalk.org and reddit/r/bitcoin, as well as bitcoin.org. (The actual control of Bitcoin.org is in @Cobra and is a core supporter until 2017. But in the second half of 2017, he began to criticize Core's autocracy and turned to the neutrality of BTC and BCH. Even Coinbase, the largest and most famous start-up company in the United States, was removed from the Bitcoin website and banned by the forum because it was on the "wrong" side.
However, the ultimate fatal blow to Bitcoin XT is the collapse of the interior of Bitcoin XT under pressure. In January 2016, Mike Hearn announced that Bitcoin was dead!
Mike, a senior developer of Bitcoin, worked with Gavin to promote Bitcoin XT. Mike was desperate for 1) Core and Blockstream control over Bitcoin development rights, 2) Theymos control over community voice rights, and 3) the loyalty of Chinese miners to Core who had the advantage.
Mike thinks that the decentralized currency experiment of bitcoin has failed. Because the system has been completely controlled by a few people, it has become congested and expensive, unable to compete with the traditional financial system, and the channel to let the community know the truth has been completely controlled, which makes people pay no attention to the real problems, but attack and ask questions. Question person.
Mike believes that Bitcoin Core has adopted a procrastination strategy for expansion and is very effective. The most common reason miners and startups reject Bitcoin XT is that "we are waiting for Bitcoin Core to expand in December". Core's two "expansion conferences" in August and December 2015 were unsuccessful. At this time, Coinbase and Bitcoin China, the main expansion companies, wake up like a dream and find themselves fooled.
Although Mike is still hopeful about the emergence of Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited, he has lost confidence in the difficulties and declared that the foundation of Bitcoin has collapsed. He has sold all the Bitcoins and left Bitcoin altogether.
Mike's announcement immediately made him a public enemy of the Bitcoin community, causing considerable damage to Gavin's reputation and expansion path. Bitcoin XT's expansion version failed._DJMINER
评论
发表评论