Remove BitPay

[theymos]

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]

Full ACK

[harding]

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]

ACK

[crwatkins]

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

[friendsofbitcoin]

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

[d1gitalflow]

ACK

See here

[miki-bgd-011]

ACK

[jgarzik]

NAK.

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

[theymos]

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

[d1gitalflow]

@jgarzik Bitcoin is The Longest VALID chain.

[HostFat]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@friendsofbitcoin I think 1 day is sufficient.

[mscheel]

ACK

[rcamera]

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]

ACK

[arshbot]

@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]

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]

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]

BitPay knows exactly what they are doing. NAK.

[mpatc]

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]

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

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

[bitsko]

Nack this and nack the hardfork policy.

[friendsofbitcoin]

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

[checksum0]

@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]

Speaking of putting user's Bitcoins at risk, given all of the outrage about Bitpay linking to a client that is compatible with their own services, why isn't Bitcoin.org linking to btc1 so that users can make an informed decision themselves?

Wouldn't it put users at risk to exclude the client that the entire rest of the ecosystem is following?

[friendsofbitcoin]

"Wouldn't it put users at risk to exclude the client that the entire rest of the ecosystem is following?"

This is very misleading.

segwit2x is supported by a mere 21% of companies - https://coin.dance/poli

over 99% of full nodes aren't running btc1 and normal node upgrade speed is longer than 3 months - http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

Here is a comprehensive list of companies who still have not agreed - http://nob2x.org/

[JaredR26]

segwit2x is supported by a mere 21% of companies

That number looks very different when you enable weighting...

Here is a comprehensive list of companies who still have not agreed

Have any big name companies actually stated they will reject 2x? I don't see any on that list, it has all the companies who are neutral / haven't stated their opinion mixed together with the ones who follow no2x

[friendsofbitcoin]

The weighted number isn't even 45% , and you suggested "that the entire rest of the ecosystem is following". Also you are completely ignoring the users which are over 99% non btc1 nodes.

How do justify this statement?

[JaredR26]

and you suggested "that the entire rest of the ecosystem is following".

I can't find any large businesses other than Blockstream that oppose segwit2x. Every single one I have found is either neutral or a supporter, and many of the neutral ones seem to be taking the position of following the most PoW chain. Did I miss the one large Bitcoin business other than Blockstream that opposes segwit2x? Which one?

[friendsofbitcoin]

It is understandable why larger businesses may want to not upset a subset of their clients by taking a position.

You are avoiding the question. So your definition of "entire rest of the ecosystem" is 21 % of businesses with a 44% traffic importance weight and less than 1% of all full nodes?

[JaredR26]

It is understandable why larger businesses may want to not upset a subset of their clients by taking a position.

That would imply that taking a position to refuse 2x would upset their clients, but the numerous large businesses taking a position to support 2x did not do so? Which side are you trying to argue for again?

[Azulan]

Bitcoin.org is no longer a reliable source of Bitcoin information.

[nukebloodaxe]

@JaredR26 We have to take the least harmful stance, this means looking at changes which harm the least amount of users. In this case, 2x has less than 50% support, therefore it does not pass muster.
Additionally, the real issue at stake here is that the end users of the removed product will be unaware of where their funds will actually be transacting; it is a violation of policy after all, and unenforced policies benefit no one.

[JaredR26]

In this case, 2x has less than 50% support, therefore it does not pass muster.

Measured how? By blocks it has >90%. By merchant adoption it has >80% through Bitpay and Coinbase? What's your measurement, and does it include "neutral" and "no vote" in the same category as "opposed"?

[HostFat]

I just want let you know that also both bread wallet and bitcoin wallet (android) should probably be removed by the Theymos logic, because they are following the chain with most hashpower :) (they are SPV wallet)

[nukebloodaxe]

@JaredR26 Ah, this is what I like about you, the shifting of the moment as a counter. I will point out that currently no 2x blocks exist, and will not do so until final activation. In terms of your >80% figure, I take it that is the non-weighted one, you have consistently pointed out the weighted one is more important and I will stick with that stance here. Additionally, neutral and no-vote are not yes, this is well understood in voting systems.

[JaredR26]

I will point out that currently no 2x blocks exist,

Oh, great then! This pull request can be closed until November then, right?

Additionally, neutral and no-vote are not yes, this is well understood in voting systems.

Ah, just so we're clear, is Core now claiming all default votes in their favor? Can I get that on the record? If so that would make things a lot more clear in regards to the repeated hardfork bit proposals we had to reject in #btc1...

[jtoomim]

In a poll, if you want to know what percentage of respondents support a statement, you divide the number of supporters by the number of respondents. Using the current results from https://coin.dance/poli:

All polled companies:
Unweighted: 21% support, 3% ready, 9% oppose, 67% no response, 0% neutral.
Weighted: 41% support, 3% ready, <1% oppose, 56% no response, 0% neutral.

Respondents only:
Unweighted: 64% support, 9% ready, 27% oppose, 0% neutral
Weighted: 93% support, 7% ready, <1% oppose, 0% neutral.

It is interesting to me that company size seems to be a predictor of support for 2x. Perhaps companies with significant revenue hope that their revenue scales with Bitcoin throughput, but companies without significant revenue fear that their costs scale with block size.

[nukebloodaxe]

@JaredR26 I was actually expecting a bit better, could you go back and reformulate your reply?

[JaredR26]

If Bitcoin.org is going to remove segwit2x supporters, why stop at Bitpay? They would need to remove from here: https://bitcoin.org/en/exchanges

Xapo
All Chinese Exchanges
The biggest japanese exchange
Both US specific exchanges
The only south american exchange
The biggest mexican exchange
Ripio
All Middle Eastern exchanges

Plus any exchanges that choose to follow the most PoW chain, so most likely at least half of the rest if not more.

And if Bitpay and Coinbase aren't supported, you might as well remove the links to merchants accepting Bitcoin, since that's most of them.

Can we get a pull request to remove all segwit2x supporters? If not I can make it myself tomorrow. Thanks.

[nukebloodaxe]

@JaredR26 Are you saying all of these exchanges are acting deceptively, and not telling their customers about which chains will/will not be supported? That is the crux of the PR here.

[JaredR26]

@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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[maskofmadness]

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

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

[mpatc]

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]

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]

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.

[JaredR26]

Wait, is the reason for removal because of the fraud accusation, or is it because of segwit 2x? Because there's many more segwit2x signers.

[lichtamberg]

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]

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]

ACK

[opetruzel]

NACK.

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

[RobbinCremers]

ACK

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