Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

@torusJKL: You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly my fear, nChain becoming an entity that can define what BCH is - lest SWPATs are abolished or ignored. But the latter would include a head-on collision with (mostly) the U.S. justice system, which isn't exactly known for its minor reach, leniency nor, more relevant here, willingness to discourage patent trolls.

If you want to put your tinfoil head on, this might look like an attack. Which I think is an unlikely explanation, but doesn't change the effects.

@Tom Zander : Side note, I see nothing wrong with people selling sex.

 

[Norway]

@Tom Zander
If you buy a lapdance from me, you will be the inferior person

 

[Zarathustra]

Here is a very old video which is showing the issue extremely well. In actual fact every single person in this video was wrong on their facts, but the only one that was violent and rude about it was Craig. He is truly a toxic man and we know from experience how toxic people can cause the entire ecosystem to grind to a halt as good people leave and smart people fear speaking their minds.

Again, it is known that every single person in this video was wrong about the facts. The point is about HOW people say things.

I repeatedly learned in my life that the most toxic people are not the rude ones who are able to show emotions. Take a look at the North Coreans. Some of the most disgusting representants there are mostly discussing in a polite and civilized manner, but are backed by censorship and are marching in fours with those sick censors.
Dr. Adam Back and Dr. Pieter Wuille for example.

 

[awemany]

I learned that the most toxic people are not the rude ones who are able to show emotions.

You learned that as a general guiding principle in your life or rather in respect to the Bitcoin situation?

I think being abrasive/malicious/a dick and being loud are two properties pretty orthogonal to each other...

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

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.

Thank you Peter. As I BU member, I fully support this. Free speach must be more important than funding. Always, ever. TBH, for some time, the cooperation with nChain made me think about undoing my membership, but I took it as a chance to get more information about this company, and everybody from BU I talked to was highly critical of CSW and nChain.

Now let's talk about nChain's influence on Bitcoin Cash protocol development and development of Electron.

I want to take what @Mengerian said further: Having stake does not only incentivize mental investment in rational arguments and science, but also monetary investment in startups. Despite being a very questionable part of the BCH community, nChain / CSW furthered some investments from which the whole ecosystem benefits.

 

[Tom Zander]

@Tom Zander
If you buy a lapdance from me, you will be the inferior person

Well, with a salespitch like that, I'll pass, thanks

 

[Zarathustra]

You learned that as a general guiding principle in your life or rather in respect to the Bitcoin situation?

In general.

The civilized man is trained to suppress his feelings. That makes him sick. In civilized humans, traumatization begins at birth:


"And what happens to them? You just look at them. They can't talk to you. They just cry. What they do is shrink. They contract, get away into the inside, away from that ugly world. I express it very crudely, but you understand what I mean. Now, that's the greeting. Taking it away from the mother. Mother mustn't see it. [...] And then comes the worst: This poor child, poor infant, tries always to stretch out and to find some warmth, something to hold on to. It goes to the mother, puts its lips to the mother's nipple. And what happens? The nipple is cold, or doesn't erect, or the milk doesn't come, or the milk is bad. And that is quite general. That is not one case in a thousand. That is general. That's average. So what does that infant do? How does it respond to that bioenergetically? It can't come to you and tell you, 'Oh, listen, I'm suffering so much, so much.' It doesn't say 'no' in words, you understand, but that is the emotional situation. And we orgonomists know it. We get it out of our patients. We get it out of their emotional structure, out of their behavior, not out of their words. Words can't express it. Here, in the very beginning, the spite develops. Here, the 'no' develops, the big 'NO' of humanity. And then you ask why the world is in a mess." Wilhelm Reich

Oder das Neugeborene kriegt die tote Flasche und den toten Schnuller. Zusätzlich wird es noch in die Bewegungszwangsjacke bzw. den Keuschheitsgürtel "Pampers" eingewickelt, damit es buchstäblich in der eigenen Scheiße sitzt, sich nicht uneingeschränkt bewegen, berühren und betrachten kann.

Wer die Geburtspraktiken und -institutionen der Zivilisation verbreiten will, will die emotionale Pest verbreiten.

http://www.dasgelbeforum.net/forum_entry.php?id=254750

 

[Richy_T]

You learned that as a general guiding principle in your life or rather in respect to the Bitcoin situation?

I think being abrasive/malicious/a dick and being loud are two properties pretty orthogonal to each other...

It should be noted that CSW is Australian so complaining about him being abrasive/malicious/a dick is borderline racism

There's plenty else about the whole situation to find problems with TBH. Getting hung up on the presentation is probably barking up the wrong tree. In fact, it's probably part of the setup. Watch the hands, not the cards.

 

[Tomothy]

What has academia to do with anything?

Nothing.

 

[Zarathustra]

The reason why CSW is an interesting topic of conversation is his bizarre and puzzling ability to act so technically incompetent and fraudulent yet still have otherwise smart people like you and Zanglebert spending such huge amounts of effort making excuses for him. It wouldn't matter, except it makes the BCH community appear to be filled with clowns and is terrible for the brand.

Craig Wright, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs et al. are able to reach millions or more people, while the non-clowns are not. Market failure? You are always free to try to compete with them on the opinion market and win the hearts of a community 'filled with clowns'. "It's the economy, stupid!"

 

[bitsko]

we need go11111111 in BU a.s.a.p. as well if possible... you game elliot? we can hashtag #nocsw on twitter at conferences bro!

let's signal.

we could put in a buip for our nodes to even signal against csw! who's down?!?!

 

[micropresident]

BitcoinABC seems to be more monolothic with deadalnix as a benevolent dictator and the rest of the team in line with him.

Mostly we just debate until we come to a mutually agreeable solution; or someone writes some code that works.

Asked, what are the similarities between the Core and the Cash community, Mike answered:

Mike Hearn has no real visibility into how work is getting done in Bitcoin Cash.

We saw this with Blockstream / Core, and many of us have warned that this happens again with ABC.

ABC developers have made every effort to work with the developers from rest of the implementations. People forget that deadalnix tried to implement UAHF as part of Bitcoin Unlimited prior to doing ABC. There are old BUIPs that never even got voted on.

We believe that heterogeneous deployments and redundant deployments are critical for the health of the network. These claims that ABC is behaving like Core are outlandish. Collaboration is important when you want to do N-version programming; and competition (despite what others claim) isn't particularly relevant when people want to run two or more implementations for high availability.

The entire goal of this project is to write a spec, in advance, so multiple implementations can work on independent versions of the nodes. The people should be taking a close look at the behavior of those making accusations against ABC.

 

[cypherdoc]

I think the biggest issue I have with all this is that anyone finds a need to attack this paper in the first place. It hasn't been quoted for years. Its not exactly an important topic. And its mostly a solved problem. Between the network topology which was fixed and the nash equilibrium that makes miners very unwilling to attack each other.

thank you.

what a waste of time.

 

[AdrianX]

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.

@Peter R are saying it was your tweets about CSW's errors with respect to 0-conf security or "proof" of Craig Wright's plagiarism, that triggered nChain to pull back on this joint initiative or your anti CSW behavior?

That they terminated the agreement did not come as a surprise.

This I find disturbing as it implies you actually considered the termination of this agreement as a potential outcome of your actions. It's one thing to make it publicly known nChain is not directing BU in any way, it's quite another to sabotage a productive relationship in a project where we share common goals.

Good relationships don't sweat the small stuff. While I agree there are some issues with orphaning blocks with RBF transactions, a supportive partner would say, yes we have this as a common goal and I'm concerned with your approach. In contrast, a partner that holds the other in contempt will call them an idiot or a fraud.

Honestly, wrecking a productive relationship to advance Bitcoin over whether or not Bitcoin mining is totally or mostly memory-less is asinine. Who cares if Emin's paper is correct or not, what is important is does it degrade bitcoin's security?

Burning a relationship over the little things when there are no miners actively pursuing the strategy provided in 2013 serves no purpose. Emin's reputation as a mathematician may be good. I rely on people I trust, like Peter to confirm it. Emin's prediction on how much impact his math would have on bitcoin is a joke. Burning relationships over a math narrative when CSW had retracted his paper was enough. Keep the focus on what is important.

I don't care who CSW or nChain is, I do care that there was a joint interest in furthering Bitcoin, and using BU as a base kernel for nChain to build on.

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.

Honestly, I don't care how you feel about CSW, I care about making bitcoin better, keep your personal goals separate from those of Bitcoin Unlimited. If you want to destroy CSW's reputation you could create another account. I'd rather see you don't use or build your personal reputation as lead BU scientist doing it.

Science and objective reality exists independent of personalities. Looking at this from the outside CSW seems to have a bunch of followers intent on destroying his reputation over making Bitcoin better. If I was a little more cynical I'd call this anti-CSW religious fundamentalism. It looks like a bunch of smart people who have a mental effigy of Satoshi and would go to any effort to destroy any suspected inferior incarnation.

We need to move on, like Bitcoin let ideas stand on their own, regardless of who puts them forward both Peter and CSW are guilty of personal attacks.

 

[solex]

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.

@Tomothy
There isn't, nor was any NDA, or a leak.
Craig published his paper rebutting selfish mining on his website first, before any public debate. This raised the profile of an issue which had largely died down. Emin's paper was seen by the community as a theoretical, rather than practical flaw in Satoshi's solution to BGP.

Once Craig published, his paper received criticism from @go1111111 and later @Peter R
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hfyoo/evidence_that_craig_wright_is_not_satoshi_he/
He deleted it off his website and posted it on SSRN, where it appears to have been modified since.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=3004026

Yes, it's still a draft, but why not seek peer review before placing on SSRN?

 

[awemany]

@AdrianX :

This I find disturbing as it implies you actually considered the termination of this agreement as a potential outcome of your actions. It's one thing to make it publicly known nChain is not directing BU in any way, it's quite another to sabotage a productive relationship in a project where we share common goals.

Just because Peter was aware that an action by him might result in an undesirable counteraction by nChain or CSW does not mean that Peter was wrong in any way to act the way he did.

nChain terminated this. Peter just called out BS by CSW.

This is another variant of the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" argument. I am quite sure that Blockstream had internal arguments along the same lines.

It doesn't make them right.

Now, is it wise to bite the hand that feeds you on all occasions or because of spite or because you want to just feel free doing so? Sure it isn't. Is it possible to live in a vacuum without outside influences? Sure that isn't possible either.

But a good business relationship means that one doesn't have to bend one's ethics or principles to the will of the business partner.

And that is what happened here.

 

[Tom Zander]

It's one thing to make it publicly known nChain is not directing BU in any way

It read like it was, though. Adding a gag-order on the chief scientist leaves the "in any way" behind for sure.

and using BU as a base kernel for nChain to build on.

I'm not sure if you mean the codebase or the community here.

 

[Juan Garavaglia]

Hi Andrew, we consider GigaBlocks are very important and needs continue. Let me know if you may consider a cooperation with Bitprim to move forward in this topic.

Juan

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]

The controversy indicator sure as heck makes me very bullish on BCH

People wouldn't fight so fiercely here on reddit and elsewhere if not for having strong interest in the future of BCH.

Maybe positive and negative interest, but that still is an indicator of the potential and what performance is expected!

 

[theZerg]

IMHO the plagiarism brought this from a spat about theory vs practice to a much more serious level. Without signing a lot of early blocks we only have CSW's word about being satoshi, and here he is stealing another's work. It opens the question of whether he was a much smaller part of team satoshi as implied, or perhaps even just the first miner. And unfortunately it IS about him possibly being satoshi -- no major technical or theoretical contributtons have been made by him yet.

In sum, have no issues with Peter's behavior. CSWs issues fester and get worse the longer they are hidden.