Coinbase to Suspend Trading in XRP

I've never used any alternative account to post here, nor do I use any on Reddit. Contrarian isn't me, and anyone who spent a bit inspecting his 9+ year reddit history would easily see that.

The allegation that he is me is an absurd bit of nonsense spread to try to harm his and my reputation (which is kinda weird, since I'd be proud to be the author of most of his posts). ... mostly spread by people promoting the activities of the con-man Craig Wright, but also somewhat promoted by employees of Saint Bitts LLC (Roger Ver) as a part of their effort to defraud cryptocurrency users and hide from the consequences of the unlawful and unethical activities that Contrarian and I have brought to light.

Edit:

> Edit: thanks for the downvote, Greg.

I hadn't ( https://0bin.net/paste/EVtgwnwh#ZAMwmphwqkYrm-NQuWpnQFvsbESq... ), when I thought you'd merely been duped. You've earned one now, especially with reposting that absurdist attack garbage even after being informed that it was incorrect.

> I find LN's UX really painful.

What did you find painful, and which wallet(s)?

> I researched this and found that Bitcoin had no initial capacity limit

That is simply untrue. From the very first version it had two capacity limits, an explicit one (https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/master/src...), and a smaller implicit and unintentional one (of about 500k) owing to the maximum locks that could be grabbed in a single BDB transaction.

Satoshi later reduced the explicit limit further and provided no explanation for doing so ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56ebe76ffff9f9... ). However, there was no issue with spam at the time or previously, nor mention of spam, and the network already had a separate and highly functional spam limiting mechanism. Had he intended to make the limit simply temporary he could have trivially programmed it that way-- e.g. as we did when we discovered the ~500kb limit, we wrote a rule that limited blocks to 500kb and then expired a few months later.

The claim that it was a "temporary anti-spam limit" is a novel construction that I don't believe I saw ever claimed until many years after that change.

At least by the time Satoshi went inactive he was well aware of the trade-offs: "Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices." ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... )

Perhaps you should consider conducting "research" by having an open discussion with an actual expert rather than just reading manipulative tracts designed to sucker people into buying alternatives? :)

I'm happy to direct you to primary reference material even though you continue to treat me rudely and disrespectfully.

Wow that's super-confused!

The original Bitcoin software supported transaction replacement. You could mark a transaction as non-final and then it could be replaced until it got confirmed (potentially gated by its locktime) or until a replacement was made that was marked final. As is necessary in a distributed system, the replacement and non-replacement was best-effort and an older version could be confirmed (or a version made later than a final version). Replacement was intended for use with payment channels, like incrementally updating an open account paying someone.

Unfortunately, the functionality had a flaw: It enabled a DOS attack. You could make a transaction then replace it 2^32 times and only pay one fee. So we disabled it. Without the explicit functionality you could still replace transactions by spamming nodes (and esp miners) with the new transaction and hoping they accepted it, but it wasn't very reliable but also no longer DOS-attackable.

Later, people pointed out that the DOS attack could be avoided if it was also required that each replacement increase the tx fee by at least the minimum transaction fee that would have been accepted. And the functionality was re-enabled: you could again mark transactions as non-final.

When BCH was created they ripped out the functionality and falsely claimed that this made 'instant payments with 0 confirmations for small values' possible. This makes literally zero sense: First, in BCH you can still replace unconfirmed transactions, it's just less reliable. Secondly, replacement is functionality intended to enable faster transactions! Thirdly, you can disable it in Bitcoin (or replace a non-final one with a final version) and get the same behaviour as BCH if that's what your use case requires.

Finally, its alleged that this was some dastardly move by Bitcoin devs to "break" "0-conf" transactions, fuled by people who can't understand that Bitcoin devs saying 0-conf transactions are not very secure doesn't mean that they don't like your ability to make them if you want to, and it ignores the fact that the basic replacement functionality was there in the very first version ( https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a99... ) and had been disabled by the self-same people being attacked for adding it.

It's basically 5G CAUSES COVID level of inanity, and it breaks my heart to see people duped by telephone-game polished versions of it.

Ethics are subjective. Asking "Is it ethical?" to a large group of people is little better than asking "Is chocolate the best flavor of ice cream?"

Legality is a more concrete and easier to give a firm answer to. If you want to have a reasonable conversation on the internet with random strangers of different belief systems, questions like "is it ethical" go right out the window.