New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove BitPay #1752

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Aug 18, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@theymos
Copy link
Contributor

theymos commented Aug 17, 2017

BitPay is fraudulently passing off btc1 as Bitcoin software to which people are required to upgrade. This is highly unethical and a violation of the bitcoin.org hard fork policy. Therefore, this pull request removes from bitcoin.org any references to BitPay and their software/services Copay and Bitcore.

@lichtamberg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

lichtamberg commented Aug 17, 2017

Full ACK

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

harding commented Aug 17, 2017

Based on my reading of the BitPay announcement linked above, I do not believe either Copay or Bitcore are currently configured to leave the existing Bitcoin consensus.

I think it would be advisable to proceed slowly and try to get BitPay to clarify their position before we delist them for encouraging the very small number of Bitcore operators to run a btc1 border node that cannot by itself result in any users of a Bitcore service seeing a hard fork.

@alp-bitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

alp-bitcoin commented Aug 17, 2017

ACK

@crwatkins

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

crwatkins commented Aug 17, 2017

I agree with @harding that we should request clarification before acting.

@friendsofbitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

friendsofbitcoin commented Aug 17, 2017

I see clarification has been requested in both their twitter handles:
https://twitter.com/compricadev/status/898301613449728000
https://twitter.com/compricadev/status/898301839904354305

@d1gitalflow

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

d1gitalflow commented Aug 17, 2017

ACK

See here

@miki-bgd-011

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

miki-bgd-011 commented Aug 17, 2017

ACK

@jgarzik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

jgarzik commented Aug 17, 2017

NAK.

It is reasonable and practical to follow the blockchain with the most hashpower (thus most secure).

@theymos

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

theymos commented Aug 17, 2017

@d1gitalflow

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

d1gitalflow commented Aug 17, 2017

@jgarzik Bitcoin is The Longest VALID chain.

@HostFat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

HostFat commented Aug 17, 2017

@theymos
Nodes on the bitcoin.pdf are the miners, they are all miners.
The attacker is someone that with a larger amount of hashing power/money is going against the interest of the "honest miners".
If he isn't double spending the money, and he isn't censoring the tx of the other miners, than it isn't attacking anything and anyone.

"Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

Not voting/mining nodes aren't nodes.

Even if you change and delete all the pages that you don't like on the bitcoin wiki, you can't change this, or you are just trying to change Bitcoin.

If you move away from this model (to give power to not-mining nodes), you are then moving more and more to this, back to the democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

@friendsofbitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

friendsofbitcoin commented Aug 17, 2017

@HostFat Please stay on topic , this pull request would apply equally whoever is correct about their interpretation of the whitepaper. The reality is we know that many nodes will not switch to btc1 within a dangerously narrow window of 3 months so we are looking at methods at reducing risk for bitcoin users.

How long of a time period should we give bitpay to qualify their stance since they have been sufficiently notified. 1 Day?

@d1gitalflow

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

d1gitalflow commented Aug 17, 2017

@HostFat theymos was here in the bitcoin scene long before you or any people from your subreddit even got to know what bitcoin was.

Please don't come here with old copypasta, as the discussion here is about if copay wallet stays on bitcoin.org or not. Don't you guys already have bcash? not enough attn? ask roger ver for attention.

Sorry for offtopic, I already gave my ack a few comments above.

@theymos

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

theymos commented Aug 17, 2017

@friendsofbitcoin I think 1 day is sufficient.

@mscheel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

mscheel commented Aug 18, 2017

ACK

@rcamera

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

rcamera commented Aug 18, 2017

I agree with @harding and @crwatkins.

@theymos may I suggest give them a couple days or till Monday? After all, their announcement may even be fraudulent, and businesses move quite slowly...

@shangzhou

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

shangzhou commented Aug 18, 2017

ACK

@arshbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

arshbot commented Aug 18, 2017

@theymos can you provide some more reasoning as to why you believe BitPay is "fraudulently passing" one software as another? Simply linking to a blog post is not sufficient and is not basis for any change.

@mpatc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

mpatc commented Aug 18, 2017

MEGA, FULL, COMPLETE & TOTAL ACK

dissenting voices should not be tolerated unless they agree to argue within the acceptable band we consider appropriate. Yes, it's FOSS, but Bitcoin software is Bitcoin core. Bitpay is being so disrespectful of all the amazing work core devs have done!

@checksum0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

checksum0 commented Aug 18, 2017

NACK, you guys are discussing removing the most user-friendly wallet because they don't want to break an agreement they agreed on? Also, it has literally 0 effect on Wallet users. It's a note to users of bitcore, which is not the wallet.

@mpatc Can you please be more assimilated? Dissenting voice must be squashed? Only Bitcoin core is true Bitcoin? Come on.

@mohrt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

mohrt commented Aug 18, 2017

BitPay knows exactly what they are doing. NAK.

@mpatc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

mpatc commented Aug 18, 2017

Dissenting voice must be squashed?

@checksum0 I'm going to assume good faith and forgive you for twisting my words. I said we shouldn't tolerate what bitpay is doing. The Bcore development team has made a decision, miners don't rule bitcoin, lightning is the future, $5 fees are great, and these 2x people are trying to hijack something. So either you're on the side of brave devs, or you're on the side of hijackers. Please get in line.

@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

@jgarzik Bitcoin is not and must not be ruled by miners.

@theymos isn't that link to just another website you control?

@bitsko

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

bitsko commented Aug 18, 2017

Nack this and nack the hardfork policy.

@friendsofbitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

friendsofbitcoin commented Aug 18, 2017

@checksum0 We can re add the wallet when another version of copay being prepared doesn't place users bitcoins at risk.

@checksum0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

checksum0 commented Aug 18, 2017

@friendsofbitcoin There is no single line of code in copay that can put users fund "at risk". You are lying through your teeth to push your narrative. Sad, real sad.

@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

@JaredR26 Are you saying all of these exchanges are acting deceptively, and not telling their customers about which chains will/will not be supported?

They are all segwit2x supporters. Bitpay is doing exactly as Bitpay should do as a signatory of the agreement. Bitpay is being targeted because of segwit2x. Or are you asserting that any deceptive practices by any businesses warrants removal? Especially when the "deceptive" is highly debatable and subjective?

Either remove the segwit2x supporters now, or don't pick and choose subjectively.

@vedran6

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

vedran6 commented Aug 18, 2017

ACK

While a network split is a bad thing in and of itself, at least more sophisticated users have the ability to choose what chain to follow. What Bitpay did is dangerous and dishonest because:

  1. Copay users won't know what chain they're on.
  2. Copay users might inadvertently send their main chain bitcoins to a black hole and permanently lose them due to no replay protection. At least BCH had replay protection implemented using a custom sighash flag.
  3. It is dishonest and fraudulent to force consensus-altering rules on unwitting users.
@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

It is dishonest and fraudulent to force consensus-altering rules on unwitting users.

Just so we're clear, you're talking about soft-forks here, right?

@vedran6

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

vedran6 commented Aug 18, 2017

@JaredR26

Soft forks do not alter consensus and they are opt-in by default. Proof: Segwit does nothing to affect users with older, non-upgraded clients using legacy transactions.

@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

Soft forks do not alter consensus and they are opt-in by default.

Right, new rules forced on unwitting users. That's what you were saying?

@vedran6

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

vedran6 commented Aug 18, 2017

Nothing is forced on non-upgraded legacy users. From their perspective rules introduced in a soft-fork are non-existent.

You don't seem to understand what a soft fork is. Please educate yourself: https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/soft-fork

@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

From their perspective rules introduced in a soft-fork are non-existent.

So you're saying segwit isn't a blocksize increase?

Or you're saying that blocksize increases are non-existent from the perspective of a user?

You really should be more careful with your words.

@vedran6

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

vedran6 commented Aug 18, 2017

Or you're saying that blocksize increases are non-existent from the perspective of a user?

From the perspective of a legacy, non-upgraded user, yes. Legacy users still see 1MB blocks. That's why it's called a soft fork. It appears you're attempting to debate something you don't understand. I suggest reading up on the matter before attempting to participate in public discussions.

@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

From the perspective of a legacy, non-upgraded user, yes. Legacy users still see 1MB blocks.

Ah, so blocksize increases are safe definitely safe then? Or maybe what you're you saying is that signature data is not actually needed on the blockchain?

It doesn't matter what you pick here. I could do this all day. Soft-forks are coercive because you change the rules on existing clients without their consent.

@btc11x3d

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

btc11x3d commented Aug 18, 2017

Just nuke those fuckers if you haven't been thinking about it, now is a good time to change the pow algo.

@Cobra-Bitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Cobra-Bitcoin commented Aug 18, 2017

Strong ACK.

All companies that signed the NYA are also in serious danger of being removed IMO, it makes no sense to send users to businesses that have signed that document and plan on exiting the Bitcoin network.

If it looks like these companies will go ahead with their hard fork, I recommend we begin explaining to users that their BTC is in danger in places like Coinbase, Xapo, Bitpay, etc. Someone should write instructions on how to take BTC off of all the major NYA businesses and move them safely into Bitcoin Core wallets. This can be published on all the major Bitcoin communication channels, and we the Bitcoin community can come together and inform journalists about what's going on, we need to reach millions of people and make sure people understand exactly what they need to do to safeguard their wealth from this hostile corporate takeover attempt of the Bitcoin network.

@barmstrong @jgarzik You people fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin and underestimate how much the community is prepared to defend their money so hostile actors like you can't screw with their coins and freedom. You already have your Bcash altcoin, so instead of trying to mess with people's money, why don't you just let the market decide which coin is superior? This Segwit2x nonsense needs to stop. Bitcoin isn't governed by corporations making agreements together, and if think it is, you will find yourself dealing with thousands of extremely angry and potentially unstable people with nothing left to lose wondering what the hell you did to their money.

@xanather

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

xanather commented Aug 18, 2017

@Cobra-Bitcoin You're the one that fundamentally misunderstands bitcoin. Consensus forms with open communication and moving forward with an agreed proposition, at the current time this happens to be bitcoin's ruleset defined 8 years ago. Not being able to ever change that agreement (i.e. bitcoins ruleset) and saying that any alternative (popular or not) is NOT bitcoin is a disappointment. @theymos has fundamentally hurt bitcoin and continues to due to his policies on the communication platforms that he controls which are designed to stifle such discussion.

You can't use your own definition of bitcoin to define whats an attack and whats not, never-mind making statements that contradict comments made by the original author of the bitcoin network that consensus originally formed around.

NACK, would be better to be neutral about it and describe differences between segwit2x, segwit chains and let users choose, I know a pipe dream.

@lichtamberg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

lichtamberg commented Aug 18, 2017

You can't use your own definition of bitcoin to define whats an attack and whats not

It's not about an attack or not. If someone pushes a HF without community consensus and even denies to add replay protection, user's funds are at risk. Bitcoin.org should not promote clients with this risks so it's logical to remove it.

@xanather

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

xanather commented Aug 18, 2017

@lichtamberg So how do you measure any HF reaching community consensus if you ignore miners and merchants? Node count? Bitcoin Core would never implement a hard-fork no matter consensus since "they don't define the rules" which is why its better to explain to users the differences between the chains that have emerged and why they exist otherwise its asking for trouble down the road. This is bitcoin.org not bitcoincore.org.

@bobquest33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

bobquest33 commented Aug 18, 2017

Let me put my 2 cents in this thread, to be very clear. There are so many discussions happening here but the core issue is did bitpay commit a scam. And from their blog link https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcore-segwit-activation/. yes they did why.... this is why I think they committed fraud:
They set the title "Why nodes need to upgrade for Segwit". Then they day Nodes which fail to upgrade to support Segwit will face major security risks, including the risk of double-spend transaction fraud.

Then what they do ... point to Go to the "btc1 release page and download bitcoin-1.14.5-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz". Which points to https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/releases. From what I know the core bitcoin github release page is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases.

And whats more they also did an addendum to prove their point:
"ADDENDUM, 8/17/17, 5:20 PM ET: Note that btc1 includes support for the Segwit2x scaling proposal. You may choose to use any full node supporting Segwit, but our instructions follow this version of Bitcoin because over 95% of Bitcoin miners have adopted Segwit2x. If you are not running Segwit2x, your node will be on a dysfunctional minority chain when the base block size increases to 2MB."

To legitimize Segwit2x and sending to a alternate bitcoin github link other than the official link is social engineering at its best. And hence I support @theymos proposal for removing copay and bitpay till they fix their misguided narrative about segwit.

@martindale

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

martindale commented Aug 18, 2017

@bitjson you still work over there, right? Can you share some of the rationale for the position as announced on the BitPay blog?

@mpatc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

mpatc commented Aug 18, 2017

As others have said, this is unfair to bitpay. So I am changing from ACK to NACK, only because there are many other fraudulent companies that have signed the NYA agreement, and thus are trying to trick people. We must remove each and every signatory of the NYA for this to be fair! There is a sickness in the bitcoin community, and these actors are not acting good faith and trying to change the rules of the game midstream. Good riddance!

Bitpay isn't close to enough. They all need to be gone!

@nvk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

nvk commented Aug 18, 2017

Any non Bitcoin Core 0.15 compatible (using service bits 6 and 8) projects should be pre-emptively removed. Noobs using those services wont know they are being forked out of the main chain.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

harding commented Aug 18, 2017

ACK.

I think BitPay has had sufficient time to clarify their position, but the only clarification posted so far seems to be the addendum to their blog post quoted by @bobquest33 above. The word "dysfunctional" in that addendum sounds to me like they don't plan to support the Bitcoin block chain after btc1 hard forks off, in which case they should not be listed on Bitcoin.org.

I hope they will soon clarify that they will default to supporting the Bitcoin block chain without contentious hard forks, in which case I will likely be in favor of quickly relisting them.

@theymos theymos merged commit 54e04bc into bitcoin-dot-org:master Aug 18, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@theymos theymos deleted the theymos:remove-bitpay branch Aug 18, 2017

@JaredR26

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JaredR26 commented Aug 18, 2017

@lichtamberg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

lichtamberg commented Aug 18, 2017

Thanks for taking a strong stance against all this segwit2x/fraud/fud shit. I think the bitcoin/core community somehow really has to defend itself more against this whole nonsense. First step is taken. Thanks.

@Grix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Grix commented Aug 18, 2017

You're free to remove the reference from your site of course, but it's pretty ridiculous to call it fraud and unethical. Bitpay is simply voting for the btc1 implementation as bitcoin and promoting it on their website, just like bitcoin.org is used to vote for the bitcoin core implementation as bitcoin and promoting it. Yours and bitpay's tactics to promote your own bitcoin ideology is identical. You might say that it's different because bitcoin.org is open source, but the fact that you so quickly merged this despite it clearly being a controversial change, shows that it is in fact controlled by a select few such as yourself and does not necessarily represent the will of the community.

@rikur

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

rikur commented Aug 19, 2017

ACK

@opetruzel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

opetruzel commented Aug 19, 2017

NACK.

Calling their actions "fraud" is itself borderline libel, not to mention wholly inaccurate.

@RobbinCremers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

RobbinCremers commented Aug 19, 2017

ACK

Misleading people simply is not acceptible!
We are not handing a shoe business ...
We are handling real money coming from real people

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment