Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[adamstgbit]

I was using BU before swapping to ABC immediately before the fork. I'm on record as desirous of reducing deadalnix' ability to force autocratic decisions upon BCH, by bailing on ABC. Given my previous good experience in using BU, I'd like to go back to that.

Couple wrinkles:

1) Can I simply deinstall ABC and install latest BU?

2) I left ABC up and running through the DAA fork, and probably a couple days since. Does this complicate the above?

i don't run a node ( i have no use for it ) i just like telling poeple what kind of node they should be running
maybe some would say that i'm some kind of hypocrite, but hey i do believe that "users should be allowed to just be users" and I'm just a user, so....
if EC becomes the thing, i'd probably run a node because i'd like the idea that my node plays a small part in deciding the blocksize limit ( even if it would be a non-mining node )

 

[Dusty]

Right. But this is exactly what happened at the end of 2013 and look what happened immediately after.

Can you please remind me exactly what are you referring to? (my memory is quite transient...)

I don't think so -- if the tether scam explodes, tethers will be worth almost nothing, so when people try to move their tether wealth into Bitcoin, they won't be moving much in.

I understand your argument, but in my line of reasoning I'm making these assumptions:

1) the knowledge will not be instantaneous, as usual: initially there will be people with difficulties in the conversion, then there will be rumors of its solvency and after a while an official statement will be made (bankrupt/insolvency/whatever)

2) The tether network will continue to work regardless of its value (it's a cryptocurrency, right?), before and after all the facts

For the same reason not every exchange will disable its trading in the same time: this means that whenever possible there will be people that will try to convert them to other coins to not become complete bagholders.

Instead, how does your scenario unfolds, exactly?

 

[torusJKL]

I was using BU before swapping to ABC immediately before the fork. I'm on record as desirous of reducing deadalnix' ability to force autocratic decisions upon BCH, by bailing on ABC. Given my previous good experience in using BU, I'd like to go back to that.

Couple wrinkles:

1) Can I simply deinstall ABC and install latest BU? Will the block data and indexing still be valid?

2) I left ABC up and running through the DAA fork, and probably a couple days since. Does this complicate the above?

My story is very similar.

I run a public Electron Cash server (electron.ueo.ch) and switched to ABC because at that time there was no official BU Cash available yet.

I would like to switch back but don't want to have too much down time.

I have more than enough space on my server to make a backup of the current state and test the switch I just didn't find the time yet.

I will report back once I've done it.

 

[theZerg]

Switching works.

Both clients have the new UTXO database organization so are compatible.

I ran BU across the fork, switched to ABC for a block, and then switched back to BU with no problems. This is with the latest version of both clients: ABC 0.16.1, BU 1.1.2

 

[lunar]

@theZerg

Must have missed this one first time around. Very informative. Are you in favour of restoring all the original opcode functionality?

https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/bitcoin-scripting-applications-decision-based-spending-8e7b93d7bdb9

I like these two new BUIPS 77/78. I'm generally in favour of freeing all the original OP_Codes. It would be a great way to see Satoshis vision expanded and further separate Cash from the paralysed legacy chain.

My general understanding is that various OP_Codes were disabled early on because they introduced a complexity that had not been fully tested. (It appears Satoshi was aware of the limits of his own abilities) I think it would be a great initiative for BU, to systematically go through these original ideas and give them some serious testing/reworking, with a view to slowly redeploying them again.

#Free the OP_CODES
#'let's make Bitcoin programable money again'

ref, copy paste from slack:
OP_CAT 126 0x7e x1 x2 out Concatenates two strings. disabled.
OP_SUBSTR 127 0x7f in begin size out Returns a section of a string. disabled.
OP_LEFT 128 0x80 in size out Keeps only characters left of the specified point in a string. disabled.
OP_RIGHT 129 0x81 in size out Keeps only characters right of the specified point in a string. disabled.
OP_INVERT 131 0x83 in out Flips all of the bits in the input. disabled.
OP_AND 132 0x84 x1 x2 out Boolean and between each bit in the inputs. disabled.
OP_OR 133 0x85 x1 x2 out Boolean or between each bit in the inputs. disabled.
OP_XOR 134 0x86 x1 x2 out Boolean exclusive or between each bit in the inputs. disabled
OP_MUL 149 0x95 a b out a is multiplied by b. disabled.
OP_DIV 150 0x96 a b out a is divided by b. disabled.
OP_MOD 151 0x97 a b out Returns the remainder after dividing a by b. disabled.
OP_LSHIFT 152 0x98 a b out Shifts a left b bits, preserving sign. disabled.
OP_RSHIFT 153 0x99 a b out Shifts a right b bits, preserving sign. disabled.
OP_2MUL 141 0x8d in out The input is multiplied by 2. disabled.
OP_2DIV 142 0x8e in out The input is divided by 2. disabled.

 

[awemany]

@lunar: I am not opposed per se, but I think it would be prudent to provide a good argument for decent use cases allowed by enabling existing or implementing new opcodes.

I think the attitude shouldn't be one of 'because we can'. That, at least partially, led to SegWit.

 

[majamalu]

Blockstream as a cult

 

[awemany]

Bitcoin Unlimited Voting System Update

Hey folks,

just a quick note, the voting system @ https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/ has been updated. A short ChangeLog:

- various fixes
- multi voting (multiple votes at once) on proposals as well as members
- signing by GPG key (GPG signing with keybase.io should implicitly also work)
- show proposal vote status and actions by member
- optional title field for proposals
- member number and member info that can be updated
- human readable comment included in proposal voting
- invisible backend changes: integrate alembic to do DB migrations

If you find any bugs, reports (through github) are of course very welcome.

 

[Norway]

Sad to see how Max Keiser now considers Bitcoin Cash as a scam:

 

[Dusty]

Sad to see how Max Keiser now considers Bitcoin Cash as a scam:

I was sad too, but hey, don't forget that Max in the past pumped the "maxcoin" scam because he would gain from that.

So I suppose he just sold his BCHs at the bottom and being now invested (only) in BTC he fears that he may have done the wrong move.

 

[torusJKL]

Sad to see how Max Keiser now considers Bitcoin Cash as a scam

So I suppose he just sold his BCHs at the bottom and being now invested (only) in BTC he fears that he may have done the wrong move.

"Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will" - Yoda

 

[lunar]

good argument for decent use cases

Great point, I should have mentioned it previously. Businesses or application layers would hopefully be providing use cases first, as a way to prioritise. Code for the sake it, it is risky nonsense.

The OP was just intended to open the subject up. See what others thought.

 

[molecular]

"semantics matter." a Bitcoin is 1 BCT + 1 BCH (only investors and speculates need bet on the ratio.)

btc and bch are like "2 sides of one coin": Bitcoin. Kinda like it.

 

[Peter R]

"btc and bch are like "2 sides of one coin": Bitcoin. Kinda like it."

Someone should make this into an image. One coin; two faces. One face represents digital gold and high fees; the other represents digital cash and low fees. What's happening now is that the market has flipped the coin -- and it's still in the air, spinning around. By keeping your coin whole, you'll win whichever side comes up on top once the flipped coin has landed.

 

[humanitee]

I think exactly the opposite: when the theter scam explodes people will realize they can't change it for dollars and will flock to bitcoin and other coins, skyrocketing their value.

You forget that Tether will have a value of near $0. Those people holding Tether can't "flock" anywhere. In the scenario you describe Tether still has value. It won't.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Are you in favour of restoring all the original opcode functionality?

Yes!
[doublepost=1511134916][/doublepost]@adamstgbit

I think the whole idea that running what Core calls a full node helps the network came about from the idea that Bitcoin is a mesh network. Besides a general lack of understanding of economics and incentives, I'm starting to think the hidden key to small-blockism is in the assumption that Bitcoin is mesh-shaped.

 

[jbreher]

Sad to see how Max Keiser now considers Bitcoin Cash as a scam]

Yeah. OTOH, Max is a mixed bag. He doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of shaming crypto scams. Maxcoin, anyone?

edit: didn't mean to pile on; I should have read further before speaking

 

[albin]

So since these core propagandists are such fee estimation geniuses and all the wallets except theirs are knuckledraggers, it shouldn't be too hard for them to show us a backtest of their magic algos, right?

 

[AdrianX]

I was using BU before swapping to ABC immediately before the fork. I'm on record as desirous of reducing deadalnix' ability to force autocratic decisions upon BCH, by bailing on ABC. Given my previous good experience in using BU, I'd like to go back to that.

Couple wrinkles:

1) Can I simply deinstall ABC and install latest BU? Will the block data and indexing still be valid?

2) I left ABC up and running through the DAA fork, and probably a couple days since. Does this complicate the above?

@jbreher yip. I have been running the various bitcoinqt,exe's from the zip's. They all read the same blockchain files and interchanging between implementations is seamless. I used the BU implementation during the fork, and just prior to that I was running the ABC 0.16.

 

[Peter R]

I think the whole idea that running what Core calls a full node helps the network came about from the idea that Bitcoin is a mesh network. Besides a general lack of understanding of economics and incentives, I'm starting to think the hidden key to small-blockism is in the assumption that Bitcoin is mesh-shaped.

I don't really get where you're going with this idea.

It makes sense that most the hash power would be connected to most the other hash power with a single hop, which gives the "nearly-complete graph" you've mentioned earlier. But I think small-blocker and large-blocker alike would agree with this.

Non-mining nodes are different though, and I'm pretty sure I read a study that the average number of hops is around 4 for information to propagate across the network (of non-mining nodes). Again I think large-blocker and small-blocker alike would agree with this.

So miners are connected (or should be connected) in a nearly-complete graph, and non-mining nodes probably aren't, but what is the significance of this?