BUIP125: (passed) Remove Norway from membership

[attila]

"What Bitcoin Unlimited can and cannot call itself is a matter primarily for its community, and you are not even a member."

Whether I'm a member or not does not change the fact of the matter that "Bitcoin Unlimited" now officially has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin, as I've pointed out.

You basically gave an ad-hominem (ie: my argument is not worthy of a reply because I do not follow some ritual)

Last time I checked this forum is open to the public.

"Meaning that if you disagree about its use of 'Bitcoin' in its name, your way of recourse is through a court of law."

Whether or not there is legal recourse from someone calling a "cat" a "dog" does not change the fact that those people are wrong. Just like people saying that "Bitcoin Unlimited" has anything to do with "Bitcoin". It's still false whether or not the legal system is involved.

"Just because someone has secured a trademark registration on the term 'Bitcoin' and may plan to embark on a little crusade of IP abuse does not mean others are obliged to stop using the term."

I've been saying the same points for weeks and months before any news of copyrights were filed -- your point is a non-argument and merely a deflection.

"If you want to go wasting computational resources on BSV, please do so, but kindly leave BCH out of it."

Factually incorrect.

It takes more energy and computational resources to sort into LTOR with BCH. It is not wise to spread misinformation.

Feel free to show us all the Big-O notation for space and time complexity if you want to prove your point. Merely stating your conclusion without supporting evidence is not an argument.

"I don't see why you should be concerning yourself with that if you never concerned yourself to any significant extent before with what BU was doing in the last few years."

This is also not an argument.

Obviously everyone has a start somewhere. Perhaps I'm interested in seeing Bitcoin scale and would love to join Bitcoin Unlimited to actually scale Bitcoin? (If only Bitcoin Unlimited actually decided to focus on scaling Bitcoin)

But it's becoming clear to me that you and many others would rather nitpick and not actually address the fundamental question of "What is Bitcoin"? (Precisely like I predicted in my previous post that many people will ignore the most foundational question).


-edit-

fix typo "ad-hominem"

 

[freetrader]

Indeed it takes more effort to refute bullshit, so @attila let me summarize:

Your notion of participating in this BUIP thread which involves @Norway slinging mud at the BU organization, is to sling more mud at the BU organization by saying it has nothing to do with Bitcoin anymore?

Makes me wonder why you are here.
But - your comments are irrelevant to the issue at hand which is Norway's conduct as a member.

 

[attila]

"Indeed it takes more effort to refute bullshit, so @attila let me summarize:"

It is not bullshit. Topological ordering IS chronological ordering with relativity. See https://medium.com/@_unwriter/neon-genesis-387fd2f122de for a more fuller treatment of this subject.

You dismissing an arguing by calling it a name such as "bullshit" ...is not an argument.

"Your notion of participating in this BUIP thread which involves @Norway slinging mud at the BU organization, is to sling more mud at the BU organization by saying it has nothing to do with Bitcoin anymore?"

Once again, you are calling my argument a name of "mud". Calling arguments names and avoiding the issue...is not an argument.

"Makes me wonder why you are here."

Questioning my motivation instead of responding to any of the points is exactly what I predicted in the last 2 posts I made.

"But - your comments are irrelevant to the issue at hand which is Norway's conduct as a member."

He pointed out that "Bitcoin Unlimited" has nothing to do with Bitcoin anymore and then made a jab at the name. What he said is a fact and true by way of definition. The "Shitcoin" part is of course "mean" and "rude", no doubt.

Apparently it is more important to be seen as polite and politically correct than it is to face the fundamental question of how the heck Bitcoin Unlimited was diverted to working on another altcoin.

 

[freetrader]

He pointed out that "Bitcoin Unlimited" has nothing to do with Bitcoin anymore

So you're here to tell us you agree with Norway. Great.

What he said is a fact and true by way of definition.

That's what definitions are for I guess. Define BU as "Shitcoin Unlimited" and that's what it will be to you.

Topological ordering IS chronological ordering with relativity.

Veracity of your technobabble aside, still not sure what this has to do with BU, or this BUIP.
SV doesn't implement CTOR, so there's your playground.

Bitcoin Unlimited was diverted to working on another altcoin.

Yet another meaningless redefinition of a word, not even imaginative since Core has done this long ago.

Perhaps I'm interested in seeing Bitcoin scale and would love to join Bitcoin Unlimited to actually scale Bitcoin?

Are you helping @sickpig set up a BU version to test on STN?

 

[Griffith]

Questioning my motivation instead of responding to any of the points is exactly what I predicted in the last 2 posts I made.

ill question your motivation for posting. You arent a member, so your opinion on BUIPs is irelevant as you can not vote on the issue. So why bother?
[doublepost=1559154240][/doublepost]

Apparently it is more important to be seen as polite and politically correct than it is to face the fundamental question of how the heck Bitcoin Unlimited was diverted to working on another altcoin.

The code is open source, you can fork the client and continue it as a SV client if you want. for some reason, no one seems to acknowlegde this. instead they complain other devs arent working what they want them to work on. you could just work on it yourself

 

[torusJKL]

The problem now is the continuing toxicity between BCH and BSV people.

This is rich, after the BU twitter account has posted anti BSV tweets.
@solex you did not even take position and answer my question in the GCBU thread.

I'm quite disappointed of the BU officers.
They have been isolating themselves, have taken a position that goes clearly against approx 1/3 of the members and don't even show up for voting.

 

[attila]

Perhaps I'm interested in seeing Bitcoin scale and would love to join Bitcoin Unlimited to actually scale Bitcoin?

Are you helping @sickpig set up a BU version to test on STN?

I thought BU does not officially support Bitcoin anymore? Did you guys vote to stop work on the BCH darkcoin and actually get back to focusing on Bitcoin?

 

[solex]

@torusJKL
Like I said, the problem is continuing toxicity between supporters of both forks. I don't consider Peter's article to be anti-BSV.
@attila,
The CTOR change which you imply makes BCH become non-Bitcoin, was actually listed as an upcoming improvement to BCH on the nChain website in early 2018. It was only removed after the breakdown in relations between Craig and Amaury. It is the equivalent of playing with semantics to pretend that CTOR is a material difference at this point.

"Darkcoin" is yet more verbiage. If this concept bothers you then go and criticise Zcash and Dash.

 

[Norway]

Let's try to stay on topic here. This is about kicking me out of BU for using the words Shitcoin Unlimited, right?

 

[freetrader]

Here is the link to what this BUIP is about.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip125-remove-norway-from-membership.24015/

 

[Norway]

That's what I said, @freetrader.

 

[freetrader]

No @Norway, read the BUIP again.

Like I said, if you feel you need to badmouth BU, then you should resign, formally.

 

[Norway]

Shitposters on this thread don't necessarily materially affect BU

You call people "shitposters", yet you propose that I should be kicked out of BU for calling it Shitcoin Unlimited?

 

[freetrader]

Like I said, read the BUIP. I'm not going to clutter this thread with actual examples of shitposting from another unrelated thread..

 

[torusJKL]

@torusJKL
Like I said, the problem is continuing toxicity between supporters of both forks. I don't consider Peter's article to be anti-BSV. [...]

Thanks for responding @solex

 

[Norway]

Like I said, read the BUIP. I'm not going to clutter this thread with actual examples of shitposting from another unrelated thread..

You used the word "shit" again. This BUIP is based on me using the word "shit".

 

[freetrader]

Let's recurse...

No @Norway, read the BUIP again.

Like I said, if you feel you need to badmouth BU, then you should resign, formally.

 

[attila]

The CTOR change which you imply makes BCH become non-Bitcoin, was actually listed as an upcoming improvement to BCH on the nChain website in early 2018. It was only removed after the breakdown in relations between Craig and Amaury. It is the equivalent of playing with semantics to pretend that CTOR is a material difference at this point.

What does some company's "opinion" have to do with the definition of a 'Bitcoin'? You are not making an argument around my points at all.

If they went ahead with CTOR, then of course it also would no longer be matching the definition of 'Bitcoin'.

The fact that you cannot actually argue on the merits of the argument and say "Look over there! So and so also had a list of CTOR at one point on a website!"

Irrelevant, but nChain's answer to why it was listed is because it was copied from ABC and they did not catch only later caught this change and subsequently removed it. But what was listed or not listed on a website has no bearing on the definition of a Bitcoin.

It is the equivalent of playing with semantics to pretend that CTOR is a material difference at this point.

It says so in the whitepaper itself.

We can do things like Neon Genesis precisely because of the chronological ordering of transactions within a block: https://planaria.network/@1HcBPzWoKDL2FhCMbocQmLuFTYsiD73u1j

It is very clearly a material point and so many different apps and services needed upgrades and extra development to adapt significantly to CTOR. Services have shut down because of CTOR. Very material consequence too.

And finally anyone saying "it's just semantics" is clearly just trying to weasel out and avoid responsibility for their argument. They are trying to avoid being caught and pulling the "It's just the meaning of words".

Next thing you know, you will just say that the "The whitepaper and protocol definition is just a bunch of meanings of words -- it's all semantics man".

https://nebula.wsimg.com/728771decbcfbb26ef068c3814ac6323?AccessKeyId=9D6F6082FE5EE52C3DC6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

[solex]

@attila
As already pointed out by others, there is too much off-topic noise in this thread.
Discussion about CTOR needs its own thread and you are welcome to start one making the arguments you have above.

 

[attila]

The only reason Norway's membership is the topic of this thread is because of CTOR! Whether he should be kicked out should rest on facts, no?

Calling this "off-topic" and "noise" is itself off-topic and a misdirection from the only central question that matters which is: "Is Norway right?"

"making the arguments you have".

It is not "my" argument that the sky is blue.

It is not "my" argument that BCH is not Bitcoin.

These are *facts*.

It is not "noise" to point to the fact that CTOR is precisely the reason that BCH is no longer, and can never be, Bitcoin.