Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[hodl]

Yes, this is a good point but needs to be put in context. Having predetermined upgrading skedule with Hard Fork potential is not Carte blanche to change things.

Core may have overdone it trying to maintain backward compatibility but permissionless innovation should not depend on a Hard Fork, the types of changes you see in a hard fork should require some vetting.

Permissionless changes don't depend on changing the bitcoin "kernel" which actually needs "permission" ie. miner buy-in and the likes of exchanges and payment service providers.

I like the idea of an upgrade schedule with the potential to hard fork, no should abuse that feature.

yep. it feels like, "see, we proved a hard fork could be done. thus, we are going to do one every 6mo just to remind you guys how smart we were and are".
[doublepost=1519675654][/doublepost]

The initial idea was "sound money."

precisely

 

[solex]

Lot's of vigorous debate here lately. Excellent to see, especially where it is technically focused and rises above the ad hominem.

Some clarifications are needed though.
Bitcoin Unlimited as an organization is a friend and collaborator of the ABC team, and XT, Bitcrust, nChain's researchers, BitPay's developers, the Bitcoin Cash miners, and everyone else who is actively advancing a scalable Bitcoin. That scalable Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash, which is the inheritor of the original Satoshi vision for a global peer-to-peer currency.

BU's official position is limited to just a few venues:
1). bitcoinunlimited.info website
2). https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/ forum for BUIP evolution
3) @bitcoinunlimit twitter feed
4) Academic research papers co-authored by BU officers representing BU, can also be regarded as authoritative

Venue 2 is further limited to the BUIP list, voting threads and other signed statements by elected officers. Anything else is personal opinion, which includes this thread (though for completeness sake, I will sign this post.) @deadalnix, and others who feel aggrieved in the development debate about OP_GROUP, please don't take the personal views of BU members to be BU policy. BU policy is only in the Articles of Federation and the passed BUIPs, which is done in a very public way so interested parties can comment and influence decisions, whether BU members or not.

BU members have come together because they are passionate about Bitcoin's blockchain, the shared investment in its ledger, and the wider social goal of global financial freedom and a sound money basis for the world economy. That vision was subverted in 2016 by the Core developers, who embraced a capacity crippling hard-limit in the BTC blockchain. This has led to a collapse in BTC cryptocurrency market share and breathed vast amounts of oxygen onto alt-coins which have a different genesis block. Hence the BCH blockchain (and its implementations) are a continuation of the pre-2016 onchain scalable Bitcoin.

BU will not fork the Bitcoin Cash blockchain over any software change unless the BU membership pass a specific BUIP with a majority vote. No such BUIP exists, and I doubt one would get quorum.
The BUIP for OP_GROUP is only about a new OP code. So it needs to be implemented by HF only with development and community agreement in a HF event, such as that proposed for May. This, of course includes ABC agreement.

It could be delayed until the next HF (November) pending further refinement and potential development community agreement. It can also be implemented sooner by BIP9-type soft-fork as a best endeavour to seek miner and ecosystem verdict on a development community impasse.

What we see with OP_GROUP is the problem of squaring the circle of permission-less development + development collaboration. It is not going to be the last change which finds very heated debate. One lesson from this process is that we can never have enough visibility about proposed changes, and community discussion is absolutely essential to a healthy development environment. The working groups are a big step forward, and there are a lot of observers, and even crypto-news media watching the discussions. This is improving visibility today.

@Dusty and @bitsko hit the nail on the head. The metric for success is adoption.

Whatever we can do to improve adoption has to be our guiding principle. We cannot always know which changes will advance adoption the most, so we have to be working on several fronts at once and be open-minded about how the ecosystem will employ onchain software improvements.

It is only 3.5 weeks until the Satoshi's Vision conference. This is a major event for advancing Bitcoin Cash, and a good opportunity to resolve development issues face-to-face, and reaffirm friendships.

------BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Bitcoin Unlimited official venues list 26 Feb 2018
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
15TiujYmnHa33fjEnasBBm1eWcGx9YEXPL
IOg92BIhO//VRp5A3VC/6X4kgtxozCmOZNqUh+Cz9Fa/BWXYl7nIj4m3KGxhSoSt3IVjwW4TIPHEI55Jye/YmIg=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 

[hodl]

 

[awemany]

@hodl: Yes, fair point about that guy. But at 75%, I think the effect of such noise is diminished.

Anyways, here's a sure sign of Bitcoin becoming mainstream:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/cryptocurrency-women-blockchain-bros.html

The #metoo crowd invading and wanting to have their fair share. Of course.

I am waiting for the day we get feminists demanding coin quotas through regulation.

 

[jessquit]

The metric for success is adoption.

But adoption for any purpose whatsoever? Bitcoin Cash is about being peer-to-peer money.

I'll re-ask the question: if we discovered a demand to store music and video files on the BCH blockchain, would we consider that to be "adoption" towards our stated goal? Would it be smart to repurpose the protocol for that market?

Isn't the main reason we're all here because some people thought that "peer-to-peer cash" was an idea that couldn't really work, so they repurposed it for something else?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I am waiting for the day we get feminists demanding coin quotas through regulation.

Thus the importance of governance via forking.

Really though, that article is a call to arms for the diversity mafia to ramp up their efforts to sabotage Bitcoin startups. It's the kind of narrative a competitor would fund to cripple their competition.

 

[solex]

@jessquit
Welcome to our forum. Good to see you here.
We obviously don't want to store large files in the blockchain, and that is an extreme example.

Think of it another way. We should foster the environment for a block-space market which is serviced by demand and supply. As long as users are paying a fee-per-byte which is acceptable to miners, then who can dig into a random transaction and declare that its use-case is inappropriate? To go to another extreme case, Eligius pool rejected any transaction which referenced the Mastercoin exodus address (as well as others such as SatoshiDice). Do we want "policing" of the mempool?

The primary role of cryptocurrency is peer-to-peer money. The problem we have today is that the market knows and expects that blockchain technology can do so much more in the modern economy. The market is pricing in use-cases which are for tokens, timestamping, etc, more than just peer-to-peer money. Perhaps some of these uses do not have longevity, certainly others will.

Isn't the main reason we're all here because some people thought that "peer-to-peer cash" was an idea that couldn't really work, so they repurposed it for something else?

Yes, but just supporting peer-to-peer cash only, is also a risk. Non-cash uses are evolving daily. Some of them will be huge, and in the long-run a successful crypto will need to be strong in both.

 

[hodl]

imo, the only thing the Counterparty or meta-currency folk are wanting from BCH is for it's miners to secure their XCP or altcoin with the asset itself just being the hook. the hope being that a huge amount of fiat and/or BCH/XCP cross investment flows into it and sends it's price soaring.

 

[hodl]

how about this as a contrived hypothetical. let's say we open the whole damn thing up to OP CODE galore including OP GROUP. then, we get the expected explosion in ICO like tokenizations like XCP. let's say it's a resounding success and each token goes to $1261 per while BCH also stays at $1261 (yes, this is a contrived example) with each token tx paying a nice miner fee. maybe great for miners but has BCH won? has it fulfilled it's third and final requirement to become a true money, that being the unit of account? i say no. b/c at a price of $1261, BCH can't possibly service the world economy, let alone provide enough liquidity to buy a house or car without causing massive illiquidity swings in it's price. so then you might say the BCH price would instead be >$100,000 if this type of alternative usage happens. i suppose. but each one of these ICO like tokens is competing for fiat investment while simultaneously diluting and competing with BCH's sole purpose of becoming a world reserve currency. i've called it a WoW platform in the past.

why wouldn't you want to keep all these assets (like stocks, bonds, insurance contracts, etc) away from the BCH blockchain and eventually have to price themselves in BCH as the unit of account?

 

[jessquit]

The primary role of cryptocurrency is peer-to-peer money. The problem we have today is that the market knows and expects that blockchain technology can do so much more in the modern economy.

Because the market was told loudly that the peer-to-peer money thing doesn't actually work.

The market for money and money substitutes is ~$100T. There is no larger target market to serve. I don't see how opcodes help us achieve that vision even one bit.

I fully support an ICO-platform fork of Bitcoin Cash with all the necessary opcodes enabled. I will definitely hold on both chains. This is the proper use of forking: I can participate in your vision and my vision too, and I win if either one of us is right.

 

[majamalu]

@hodl: Yes, fair point about that guy. But at 75%, I think the effect of such noise is diminished.

Anyways, here's a sure sign of Bitcoin becoming mainstream:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/cryptocurrency-women-blockchain-bros.html

The #metoo crowd invading and wanting to have their fair share. Of course.

I am waiting for the day we get feminists demanding coin quotas through regulation.

I'm glad to see a lot of push back in the comments. This one, for example:

"I read nothing here that convinces me that there are any barriers for women, other than their own thin skin and sense of entitlement. Women have to come to terms with the fact that (generalizing) they are not risk takers. You need guts and a thick skin to jump into something new and unproven with both feet. That's not what is happening.

What is happening is that women sit back while men take all the risks and put in the blood, sweat, and tears to build companies and whole industries, and after that work is done they come knocking on the door and demand to be let in. Then they demand that everything has to change to suit them. That's not a position of strength, nor is the name calling ("bros" and "clowns")."

 

[BCH King]

Let's be very clear here, we as ABC have zero obligation to be cooperative with BU.

Of course. It may be better that the teams do not co-operate and the consensus rules do not match. Let hashrate and economic power decide. It is a good idea to be civil though.

Is there an overriding use case for such a thing?

I should think so. Even without 'programmable money'. Why should I have to wait (on average) 10 minutes before I can spend cash I just received? Why should a merchant not be able to accept the risk that this cash my never settle. Can someone confirm that CPFP is a thing in cash clients (even if not part of the consensus rules) and the child can be included in the same block as the parent (and great-grandparent)?

Please notice that he stated everyone but him can improve on our strategic messaging

[not in citation given]
[doublepost=1519700305,1519699604][/doublepost]

@hodlI am waiting for the day we get feminists...

Interesting fact: The BCH King is a feminist and considers the opposite of feminist to be 'arsehole'.

For me, it comes down to the equality vs equity cartoon. If women '(generalizing) [...] are not risk takers', and this puts them at a disadvantage, then we need to be equitable about it.

Exactly the same rationale that Bitcoin is for the other 6 billion, but those 6 billion do not start on an equal playing field with regard to smartphone technology, internet speeds etc. then we need to put some thought into making access to Bitcoin equitable (i.e. not enforcing an artificial fee market via a block size limit).

 

[hodl]

>Can someone confirm that CPFP is a thing in cash clients (even if not part of the consensus rules) and the child can be included in the same block as the parent (and great-grandparent)?

yes, it worked great the one time i used it.

 

[majamalu]

Interesting fact: The BCH King is a feminist and considers the opposite of feminist to be 'arsehole'.

For me, it comes down to the equality vs equity cartoon. If women '(generalizing) [...] are not risk takers', and this puts them at a disadvantage, then we need to be equitable about it.

You are not taking into account the numerous risk takers who lost everything. Nor the few risk takers who have earned fortunes and end up sharing it with women, or directly putting their fortunes under the control of their wives. It can be argued that not being risk takers in some way puts women at an advantage.

 

[Zarathustra]

I am waiting for the day we get feminists demanding coin quotas through regulation.

Yes, society / civilization (= hyper collectivism) is a power game. Not everyone wants to play according to the competition rules of the market fundamentalists. Women are free to play their power under other rules if they do not want to participate in the contest according to the rules of the market fundamentalists (homo oeconomicus). The homo sapiens (anarchists in the rain forest) on the other side is not a competitor. He is a collaborator, a co-worker. Deal with it! After all, women acknowledge that they use the power of the state to achieve their goals of defending themselves against the contest/competition enthusiasts, while market fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge that the market has always been regulated and ruled by organized violence (church and state). Without a state no market.

Best regards

 

[Zarathustra]

Interesting fact: The BCH King is a feminist and considers the opposite of feminist to be 'arsehole'.

My favorite feminist; she takes more risk than all of us male risk taking competition heroes combined:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1033#post-43348

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm glad to see a lot of push back in the comments. This one, for example:

"I read nothing here that convinces me that there are any barriers for women, other than their own thin skin and sense of entitlement. Women have to come to terms with the fact that (generalizing) they are not risk takers. You need guts and a thick skin to jump into something new and unproven with both feet. That's not what is happening.

What is happening is that women sit back while men take all the risks and put in the blood, sweat, and tears to build companies and whole industries, and after that work is done they come knocking on the door and demand to be let in. Then they demand that everything has to change to suit them. That's not a position of strength, nor is the name calling ("bros" and "clowns")."

That's not the whole story, dear @majamalu

Men began to subdue cattle. Hereby they discovered that men also played a role in reproduction. The next step was the demotion of the mother from the goddess to the whore. At the same time, male gods were invented and chosen men were selected as earthly representatives of those gods. Temple / church and state were created and at the same time the tribute (tax) for this grandiose institution. This debt to the church and state transformed the homo sapiens into a caricature of himself, a surplus producer, a homo oeconomicus, whereupon the market arose. The surplus is the tax.

And now the men applaud this idiotic system and expect women to be enthusiastic about it.
The men were hunters (risk takers) and the women were the collectors in the community. And now the men expect the women to become men (hunters) as well?

 

[awemany]

@BCH King : Go and call me arsehole then As if women had no chance of becoming involved in Bitcoin. I am not saying that there was no preferential order to who could "get into it" first, but women are exactly not the group of people that have been at a disadvantage on this matter.

White females are easily the most privileged class of people that exists on this planet. What exactly kept them from getting involved in Bitcoin? They had all the time to do so. Yet we see extremely few of them in Bitcoin.

@majamalu: Yes.

@Justus Ranvier: Exactly my thinking. I was actually expecting the diversity agents to show up much earlier. Another angle on this is to place women in key positions where their gender might help to squelch dissent by exploiting the effect of 'who would argue against a woman'. One should look around for that as well...

@Zarathustra: Here's a woman for you, explaining a couple things.

 

[jessquit]

I see nothing but unnecessarily heightened divisions if we keep pursuing this off-topic hotbutton discussion about feminism. I am practically biting through my tongue right now because even more than excoriating some of you I want to pursue my vision of Bitcoin.

What's next, abortion? C'mon.

 

[awemany]

@jessquit: Point taken. But I brought this up specifically in relation to the Bitcoin space, as I potentially see the same mechanisms and intents that screwed other areas apply here as well.

Also, this is a recurring theme here. Zarathustra and I know that we have some vastly different opinions on stuff. Usually it becomes quiet again after a while