Mike hearn blockchain explorer
Mike Hearn is a software developer who works on the Bitcoin Core development team and also at Google. In this article, Mike discusses some bitcoin privacy leaks, and a new technique that does not currently have a name, but which he calls merge avoidance. It is distressingly easy for someone to learn about your balance, trading history and more. Protecting this information is a basic function of any useful financial system. Many privacy problems in Bitcoin are caused by an adversary learning which outputs are owned by the same wallet.
We are searching data for your request:
Mike hearn blockchain explorer
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
- Ten arrested in Netherlands over bitcoin money-laundering allegations
- [Bitcoin-development] Testnet block explorer
- Merge Avoidance: Privacy Enhancing Techniques in the Bitcoin Protocol
- Point-by-Point Response To Mike Hearn’s Final Bitcoin Post
- The Budding World of Smart Contracts
- Awesome Documentation
- Bitcoin Transactions on Android Vulnerable to Theft
Ten arrested in Netherlands over bitcoin money-laundering allegations
Chapter 1 of the book The Blocksize War is published below. The full book is available on Amazon. January It was Saturday, August 15, , when an event occurred that took many in the Bitcoin space by surprise and shook the community to its core.
Two of the most prominent and respected Bitcoin developers at the time, Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen, had respectively released and thrown their support behind a new, incompatible version of Bitcoin. This new client was called Bitcoin XT.
Bitcoin had offered such hope, excitement and opportunity to many, and it now appeared as if this act was sure to send the system into disarray, peril and potential catastrophe. As the Guardian newspaper said on the following Monday:. The Bitcoin wars have begun . Bitcoin XT was a proposal to increase the amount of space available in blocks.
In , the blocksize limit was 1 MB and Bitcoin XT wanted to increase this limit to 8 MB and then double it every two years until , when the limit would be around 8, MB. The reason for this was that blocks were becoming larger as the system became more popular, and the blocksize limit was close to being reached, which would result in full blocks.
Proponents of the increase argued that higher capacity was needed to ensure Bitcoin could scale up and become a cheap global payments system. They were concerned that, if the limit was regularly reached, this would make the network difficult to use and too expensive, which would damage the growth prospects for the system. To Gavin and Mike, we were heading into a crisis, where users could be turned away from the network, and action was required. This war over the blocksize would shatter and split the ecosystem over the next two years.
The contention was essentially about four somewhat interrelated issues:. At this point, however, most of the focus was on the narrow issue of the blocksize limit. There was almost universal agreement in the community that the 1 MB limit was too small. However, there was no consensus on what it should be or how to change it.
Most people also seemed to agree that the proposed increase in Bitcoin XT was too aggressive and that something more moderate was required. They had to make the first move; after all, their opponents were in favour of the status quo. Mike and Gavin had made this proposal several months back, however, it is in August when the client was officially released and they encouraged people to run it, therefore this is when we mark the formal commencement of hostilities.
This is not to say Mike and Gavin considered what they were doing as a hostile act or acted nefariously; a war is merely how I am framing it in this book. Bitcoin XT was a software implementation of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP , one of many in a long line of proposals to increase the blocksize limit. This proposal was first formally published by Gavin Andresen, a few months earlier on June 22, The software could not just simply increase the limit; it needed an activation methodology, a system to try and ensure that the Bitcoin network itself adopted the new rules.
The chosen activation methodology in this case consisted of a flag day and a miner signalling threshold. The earliest activation point was January 11, , around five months away.
In addition, activation required a vote from the Bitcoin miners. Miners would be required to signal inside the blocks they produced that they had upgraded for the proposal. If blocks flagged support, in any 1,block rolling window, the upgrade would activate. After this, there would be a two-week grace period before the rule came into effect and the blocksize limit finally increased. If miners did not achieve this 75 percent threshold, the proposal would be considered a failure.
What this essentially means is that anyone running a Bitcoin node that validates all the rules would be required to upgrade their software. If everyone did not agree to upgrade, according to the small block world view, this could cause Bitcoin to split into two different coins.
This type of upgrade is referred to as a hardfork, the most extreme form of upgrade possible. This type of upgrade can essentially change Bitcoin in any way, from increasing the Bitcoin supply cap above 21 million, to taking away any coins from any holder and giving it to anyone else. To them, this characteristic is what made the network resilient; it meant nobody could take away their coins and ensured the supply cap of 21 million was robust.
This was considered as the whole point of Bitcoin. Pushing for a hardfork without consensus was therefore considered by some as an attack on the network. Others clearly did not agree; they thought that Bitcoin needed to be flexible in order to succeed and grow and, with respect to the particular matter in question, the blocksize limit, this was not a major change.
They considered bringing up the 21 million supply cap was merely an example of the slippery slope fallacy, and a red herring. The tension over this issue had been building in the community for years, deep under the surface. At this point, however, this key ideological difference was in the open and exposed for all to see. As an open system, it was not possible to conceal this disagreement from the public any longer.
On August 24, , just nine days after the release of Bitcoin XT, there was a letter of support published by some of the largest and most significant companies in the industry. Our community stands at a crossroads. The debate about which path to take has, by and large, been a healthy one, and we have not interposed our own positions or interfered in the discourse.
Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing. We believe that work is complete, and it is time to communicate our view in a clear and transparent manner. After lengthy conversations with core developers, miners, our own technical teams, and other industry participants, we believe it is imperative that we plan for success by raising the maximum block size.
We support the implementation of BIP BIP and 8MB blocks are already supported by a majority of the miners and we feel it is time for the industry to unite behind this proposal. Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December and we will run code that supports this.
As our community grows, it is essential — now more than ever — that we seek strong consensus to ensure network reliability. We pledge to support BIP in our software and systems by December , and we encourage others to join us.
These were not only some of the largest companies in the space, but many of them were also well funded and had considerable venture backing. BitPay was one of the largest merchant payment processors and Blockchain. This letter further inflamed the situation. On one side, it was vital for industry to engage with development issues and help things progress, while some on the other side considered this as exactly the wrong approach.
Bitcoin was supposed to be run in a grassroots, bottom-up, user-driven fashion; lobbying from the top down by large corporates undermined the whole point of Bitcoin. According to the small blockers, Gavin should have focused more of his efforts on lobbying users first, trying to get their buy-in for larger blocks before asking industry to run the new, incompatible client.
In their view, this was likely to be both more ethical and, crucially, more effective. One can also suggest that Gavin may have been driven by his ego. After many years of frustrating arguments, he may have been eager to show the other developers his power and influence. He had lobbied for support from those he considered as the major power-brokers in the space, the industry.
This was an opportunity for Gavin to show the developers who opposed him that they barely mattered, that the main companies in the space did not even know who they were. His opponents were no doubt further enraged by this, contending that these industry players made no difference.
Now is probably an appropriate time to talk a bit about Gavin Andresen. Bitcoin was, of course, created by Satoshi Nakamoto. More precisely, Satoshi designed the system, wrote and published the initial buggy reference implementation of Bitcoin, and authored the whitepaper.
Just under two years after the network launched, in December , Satoshi left the project. After this point, Satoshi no longer contributed to the code and stopped making forum comments.
Gavin explains how, in his mind, he took over as leader of the project:. Over time [Satoshi] trusted my judgment on the code I wrote. I was the person everyone would email when they wanted to know about bitcoin. Satoshi started stepping back as leader of project and pushing me forward as the leader of the project.
At the time of the supposed handover, the Bitcoin software was published on Sourceforge and, in January , two people were listed as maintainers, Satoshi and Gavin. Bitcoin has no leader. Gavin had control of the Bitcoin software repository on Sourceforge, and later on GitHub, until he handed it over to Wladimir Van Der Laan several years later, in April Control of a software repository, of course, does not mean control over Bitcoin, as Bitcoin users can run any software they like, from any repository they like.
This misconception has lingered on for years. People on either side of the war kept making these points, but it really did not matter. The unquantifiable influence Gavin had in the space was due to his personality and leadership characteristics. However, this was more difficult to articulate, so people focused on how and if Satoshi handed the project over to him.
In his public forum posts and at events, he came across as patient, thoughtful, calm and pragmatic. It is these personality traits and leadership qualities that made him stand out from the other developers more than anything else. When Gavin spoke, people listened; he sounded reasonable and took time to explain things. This was in stark contrast to some of the other developers, who were sometimes regarded as being intolerant of those with weaker levels of technical knowledge, or preferred to remain behind the scenes.
Gavin had this perceived level of influence over the technical community because of who he was, not a handover of power. Gavin also contributed significantly to Bitcoin in the first few years. In He then created a Bitcoin faucet, or website to give away the Bitcoins. This greatly contributed to the success of the network in the early days by distributing the coins to a wide number of people.
Gavin also co-founded the Bitcoin Foundation in , of which he was a board member. In addition to several other functions, one of the main responsibilities of the foundation was to pay Gavin to work on Bitcoin development. Gavin was therefore the first paid Bitcoin developer. Gavin remained at the foundation, with the title of chief scientist, until mid
The second half of is filled with the same ups and downs as the first half, although the market value of Bitcoin continues to steadily rise. In this half of we see more hacks occur, DDoS attacks against exchanges and websites alike, and even an attempt to extort the community with a scam perpetrated on Black Friday. The Bitcoin ecosystem continues to expand with the release of the 21 Bitcoin Computer, a micro form-factor computer with a Bitcoin mining rig attached that allows for autonomous Bitcoin services to be added to the Internet of Things. Also,Microsoft adds more services to its Blockchain-as-a-Service cloud platform which can include Bitcoin blockchain services. The foundation of the blockchain ecosystem expands as well with the emergence of the R3CEV thinktank and the Linux Foundation open source collaborative blockchain software project. Then, just as it seems the year will come to a close without too much major drama, Craig Steven Wright gets fingered by Wired and Gizmodo as the inventor of Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto a claim that is almost instantly debunked by the community.
[Bitcoin-development] Testnet block explorer
Blackcoin More is the name of open source software which enables the use of this currency. Blackcoin is a decentralised digital currency with near-instant transaction speeds and negligible transaction fees built upon Proof of Stake 3. It is a fork of the Bitcoin Core software project. The first commit of Halo contains BitMHalo. This is a custom Bitmessage implementation for running messaging and decentralized markets in Halo. This is basically the backbone of communication and it is how the markets and communication are kept private and serverless. BitTMP is what Halo generates with the current command. Other commands are held in a file and this is done without making RPC calls to avoid losing pending commands. There is a more efficient way to do that but until a Halo refactor is done then this is the protocol.
Merge Avoidance: Privacy Enhancing Techniques in the Bitcoin Protocol
Forum Rules. My Replies My Profile. Last Jump to page: Results 1 to 25 of Thread: RIP Bitcoin. Last edited by forreachingme; at PM.
Point-by-Point Response To Mike Hearn’s Final Bitcoin Post
Bitcoin wallets on Android are vulnerable to theft because of problems in a component that generates secure random numbers, developers said. The problem is said to be in the Android operating system and will affect bitcoin wallets generated by an Android app. Apps for which the user does not control the private keys are not affected, developers at Bitcoin. Exchange front-ends like Coinbase or Mt. Gox apps are, for example, unaffected by the issue as the private keys are not generated on the user's Android phone.
The Budding World of Smart Contracts
Replace transaction merkle tree with a Merkle-sum-tree. This allows SPV nodes to stochastically validate the subsidy in blocks by fetching a random leaf and then fetching its txins. This way if you have a stream of utxo queries coming in, you can make the work of them mine for you.
Bitcoin Transactions on Android Vulnerable to TheftRELATED VIDEO: Mike Hearn, Bitcoin Core Developer part2 NBC2014
Android users of Bitcoin are being advised to upgrade their apps and re-secure their wallets after the discovering of a weakness in a component of the operating system responsible for generating secure random numbers. The weakness also affects some secure communication networks, and renders users vulnerable to theft of their digital currency. The weakness lies with the Android implementation of a piece of code which is supposed to spit out purely random numbers. The vulnerability was highlighted by developer Mike Hearn , who created the Bitcoin Wallet app. That app has since been updated, as have Mycelium Wallet and blockchain.
Bitcoin wallets on Android are vulnerable to theft because of problems in a component that generates secure random numbers, developers said. The problem is said to be in the Android operating system and will affect bitcoin wallets generated by an Android app. Apps for which the user does not control the private keys are not affected, developers at Bitcoin. Exchange front-ends like Coinbase or Mt. Gox apps are, for example, unaffected by the issue as the private keys are not generated on the user's Android phone. Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography so that each address is associated with a pair of mathematically linked public and private keys that are held in the wallet. The user signs a transaction to transfer bitcoins to somebody else with the private key, and the signature is validated using the public key.
Bitcoin wallets on Android are vulnerable to theft because of problems in a component that generates secure random numbers, developers said. The problem is said to be in the Android operating system and will affect bitcoin wallets generated by an Android app. Apps for which the user does not control the private keys are not affected, developers at Bitcoin. Exchange front-ends like Coinbase or Mt.