Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@Zarathustra I see your point, but CSW's plagiarism is a bit more than an accusation at this point:

https://coinjournal.net/craig-wright-accused-of-plagiarism/

i didn't realize it was that bad.

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
I paid attention, even though I didn't read that pdf in 2015. I'm just saying CSW put focus on the issue when nobody else did.
[doublepost=1523632291][/doublepost]I would like to see @Peter R and Emin wearing white coats in their SM lab figuring out the formula that explains why ViaBTC mined down the difficulty of BCH at great financial losses short term to bring this baby alive. (Haipo Yang even put his newborn daughter's name in the coinbase text of the first block.)

 

[jessquit]

otherwise smart people like you and Zanglebert spending such huge amounts of effort making excuses for him

In Christianity they have this phrase: "hate the sin but love the sinner."

In science we need a corollary: "hate the sinner but love the ideas."

I make no excuses for assholery. The guy is a trainwreck. But just because he said something doesn't automatically make it wrong, and discussing these things doesn't automatically make someone his cheerleader.

Saying that we shouldn't bother to think about certain ideas because they came from an undesirable mouth is bad science and cliqueism. If we fear reprisal because we happen to share a theory with an asshole, then we must be brave and accept reprisal, in the name of science.

Edit: I reiterate this wonderful video clip
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1166#post-61726

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zarathustra:

Ok, so tell me then, please: Should I assume that nChain is equal to CSW, after all?

Yes. He's the Chief Scientist and the opinion leader. I would not take money from someone I constantly attack and slander.

 

[jessquit]

i didn't realize it was that bad.

It's that bad.

 

[Norway]

If you care about the content only and not ego, why should you give references?
(Well, this doesn't really apply to CSW, as he cares a lot about his ego etc, lol!)

 

[awemany]

@Zarathustra: I am not aware of any proof of CSW funding nChain or BU, even though that is sometimes purported.

I furthermore like to say that even more problematic than being someone's bitch money-wise (which is unavoidable for most of us not lucky enough to have millions in crypto) is to be proactively arguing to behave as someone's bitch because they might have paid us. Feels like being preemptively obedient, and enjoying it.

I guess it might be time for me to personally avoid the gigablocks test network and use my own HW or find other deals. Will do so.

Let me further state that I have not received any personal benefits from this whatsoever.

 

[Norway]

@jessquit
If the global M1 is $100T now, it's larger than the global M2 at $80T I used to calculate my graphs a few years ago. Inflation is happening!

(Note that I use the words "value of XXX US Dollars" in my graphs, as they are ment to represent the value current USD dollars hold, not the exchange rate in the future.)

 

[Tomothy]

It's that bad.

Sorry guys, its NOT that bad.

SOMEBODY, leaked an initial draft. It's still a draft. It's not fraud, it's not plagiarism, it's just ego's clashing trying to screw each other.

We should do better.

 

[awemany]

@Tomothy: Have you worked in academia?

 

[Peter R]

@Zarathustra, because you are essentially now arguing an extended form of "not biting the hand that feeds us" and as nChain is keen on SWPATs, I think I'll definitely look elsewhere to test my code now. You are essentially arguing that nChain should become more influential in BU and I hope you can see this, for once.

nChain informed BU -- after I tweeted about CSW's errors with respect to 0-conf security -- that they would be winding down their funding of the Gigablock Testnet over the next three months. Shortly after I tweeted proof of Craig Wright's plagiarism, nChain informed us that they would be terminating the Gigablock agreement effective immediately. BU agreed to the termination and forgave the small (~$10k) balance owed to BU by nChain. In total, nChain contributed $37,666.78 in cryptocurrency to the Gigablock Testnet. They made no in-kind contributions (engineering, technical writing, code review, or otherwise).

That they terminated the agreement did not come as a surprise. Since the agreement began last summer, each tweet, reddit comment, or forum post I made that pointed out an error in CSW's work, or critiqued him in some other way, was met with a response in private from nChain. By this winter they had made it explicitly clear that I was not to question CSW's ideas, point out errors in his work, or publicly critique him in any way, or they would pull the funding for the Gigablock project.

I had definitely been warned.

I promised myself to remain silent on CSW until after Satoshi's Vision Tokyo, so as not to put the success of the conference at risk. I starting calling Wright out shortly afterwards.

It is due to my actions that nChain terminated the Gigablock project.

I apologize to all those at BU who are dissappointed by this news or with me. But I hope you can see things from my perspective: being unable to speak your mind and being forbidden from pointing out blatant fraud in the ecosystem because it puts your project's funding at risk is a terrible feeling.

Incidentally, since the CSW fraud scandal has blown up in recent weeks, other members of the BCH community have reached out to me in private to express their disillusionment with CSW. A very serious problem however is that nChain is funding many of the projects these people are working on. The people working on them are conflicted like I was: do they speak their minds? Or do they bite their tongue, look the other way, and keep working on what they believe will help grow BCH. It's a difficult decision to make.

 

[awemany]

@Peter R.: I see absolutely no fault in what you did. Except maybe a minor general starry-eyedness regarding this issue by many in BU I fully understand where you are coming from and I think you did the very right thing here.

In any case, thanks for informing all of us and thank for doing the right thing.

I am tired of all things CSW and rather want to concentrate on moving BCH forward.

I guess I can continue using the gigablocks network then.

 

[Tom Zander]

That they terminated the agreement did not come as a surprise. Since the agreement began last summer, each tweet, reddit comment, or forum post I made that pointed out an error in CSW's work, or critiqued him in some other way, was met with a response in private from nChain. By this winter they had made it explicitly clear that I was not to question CSW's ideas, point out errors in his work, or publicly critique him in any way, or they would pull the funding for the Gigablock project.

Thank you for sharing this, this is very interesting to see.

I have seen many people suddenly go silent where they before were critical of CSW as such I suspected this kind of thing.

I am not a BU member so maybe people don't value my opinion in this. I will share it anyway. nchain buying a person or groups silence and compliance is their good right in an open market. People letting their silence be bought are betraying something so core to a human being that it puts you below even a sexworker who only sells their body, not their opinions.

I think Peter made the right decision.

ps. and because I openly say these things is why companies like nchain don't even bother approaching me with these proposals. They quickly see I can't be bought.

 

[bitsko]

It is not necessarily a bad thing that peter divorced BU from nChain.

BU can avoid their influence, we can avoid an all encompassing 'blockstream' that some people understandably fear, and perhaps can introduce the old BTC node collectivists into the BCH ecosystem via BU.

BU can take the assumption that non mining nodes are important to individual freedom and can embrace being a node project for non-miners.

it's fine if BU is vulnerable to crashes and other things as it won't be used by the miners...

we can house all the anti csw virtue signallers here, peter and emin can try and make their careers on bitcoin being broken, and the world will be a happy place again.

I'm just glad I didn't sell when emin said I should.


below is an image that reminds me of the neverending selfish mining discussion:

the reason being it really looks cool on paper, but try and build one in real life...
[doublepost=1523640321][/doublepost]also, let's fast track Tom zander a membership in BU... whattaya say Tom?

 

[Norway]

@Tomothy: Have you worked in academia?

What has academia to do with anything?

 

[bitsko]

obviously noone borrows math because that would be stealing.

now let me find out a new way to express what 1+1 equals so that I'm not a copycat

darpa.

 

[torusJKL]

being unable to speak your mind and being forbidden from pointing out blatant fraud in the ecosystem because it puts your project's funding at risk is a terrible feeling

@Peter R I can't say who is right in this debate but being in a position like you were in is clearly wrong.

It is a good thing that BU has its own funds and even if support from 3rd parties is always welcome BU is not dependent on it to survive.
We can only imagine how many start ups might be dependent and can't speak their minds anymore.


Another thing that bothers me about nChain is their way to bring software patents into bitcoin (BCH).
For example the colored coins contest allows (and most possibly requests) the participants to use nChain patents.
We don't know what those patents are and most possibly the participants had to sign an NDA which will not allow them to disclose if their solution includes nChain patents.
Should one of these solutions become widely used then nChain will be able to dictate and control parts of BCH.

And what will happen if there is a fork?
This could cripple a fork if it would not be allowed to access such transactions anymore due to nChain seeing them as a threat and forbidding this fork to continue to use their patents.

 

[bitsko]

good point torus... if nchain tech gains traction, and tom or Christoph get a controversial softfork going, BU will fork without that tech.

 

[Norway]

@Peter R
Thanks for sharing. Sad to hear that nChain pulls support for the Gigablock Testnet. We will do it without them. Freedom of speech is extremely important here, and BU should not be bought to be shut up under any circumstances.

This is really disturbing.

 

[Wecx]

It is not necessarily a bad thing that peter divorced BU from nChain.

BU can avoid their influence, we can avoid an all encompassing 'blockstream' that some people understandably fear, and perhaps can introduce the old BTC node collectivists into the BCH ecosystem via BU.

BU can take the assumption that non mining nodes are important to individual freedom and can embrace being a node project for non-miners.

it's fine if BU is vulnerable to crashes and other things as it won't be used by the miners...

we can house all the anti csw virtue signallers here, peter and emin can try and make their careers on bitcoin being broken, and the world will be a happy place again.

I'm just glad I didn't sell when emin said I should.


below is an image that reminds me of the neverending selfish mining discussion:

the reason being it really looks cool on paper, but try and build one in real life...
[doublepost=1523640321][/doublepost]also, let's fast track Tom zander a membership in BU... whattaya say Tom?

I had to sign up to respond to my friend Bitsko! Funny post.

SM works on paper just like 51% attack, 30% double-spend attack, and so forth. I don't understand why there is such a fervor to prove SM wrong mathematically. I accept it's a mathematical possibility in a sterile environment outside of market conditions and I wish to move on.

See ya when I see ya!