Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

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

Before @theZerg replies, I just want to say that it is fantastic getting your message of support! We would welcome deeper collaboration with Bitprim.

 

[AdrianX]

CSW does not mean that Peter was wrong in any way to act the way he did.

This bickering is not the type of discussion I'd expect from two adults who believe they are objectivity reviewing science. It looks more like egos responding to emotional projections. I'm not pointing fingers at just Peter.

As far as I'm aware Selfish mining is not such a big issue that one needs to burn down the house.

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

Another way of putting this is nChain gave notice to BU after this partnership started yielding negative results. BU vision is looking like a shell of what it was when we had just 7 nodes running.

People can respectfully disagree, and one does not need to take an ego knock. I dislike geocentric fundamentalists, but I'm not going to spend all my energy proving Luke-Jr is wrong when I can make BCH better, I expect the same from other members of BU.

Now, is it wise to bite the hand that feeds you

nChain does not feed Bitcoin Unlimited as far as I know.

We were equal partners in a joint venture with a common goal.

Adding a gag-order on the chief scientist leaves the "in any way" behind for sure.

I haven't seen a gag order. @Peter R did you sign an NDA? If not please share your “gag order”.

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

codebase - Here is a summary, nChain expressed a will to build their certified enterprise version of a Bitcoin client on top of BU https://nchain.com/en/media/nchain-completes-workshop-bitcoin-unlimited-announces-support-bitcoin-scaling-initiatives/

As a key first step in the developing collaboration, nChain will help improve and deliver a “certified” version of the BU client software. Unlike Bitcoin Core, BU’s client software is designed for larger block sizes and provides a better foundation to support on-chain scaling. nChain will enhance the BU client software into a next-generation “certified” version with rigorous software testing and quality assurance, thorough documentation, and strong software support. This certified version will be especially valuable for Bitcoin miners, exchange operators and merchants. BU will continue providing its own version of the client software, which will include Beta releases and production code, intended more for mass consumer use by small businesses and individual users.

[doublepost=1523664672,1523663644][/doublepost]

we only have CSW's word about being satoshi,

We need to stop thinking of him as Satoshi, I thought this was already agreed he is not Satoshi, end of story. He is working for what is now a former BU business partner, why? (hint it's not because we are correct about him being wrong).

This anti-CSW religious fundamentalism looks like an intellectual witch hunt by people who hold Satoshi as a god and will go to any effort to destroy any suspected inferior incarnation.

Stop giving him attention if he is not important, move on.

 

[AdrianX]

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!

This is true but it's in jeopardy with all this divide and conquer.

Here is the secret ingredient to innovation and I'll say it is the foundation for BU's success: Cognitive Diversity working in an environment with Psychological Safety.

https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it

and

https://hbr.org/2018/04/the-two-traits-of-the-best-problem-solving-teams

@Peter R and @theZerg take note of the above I see this social capital diminishing at a rate that makes me uncomfortable. Our target is High Cognitive Diversity and High Psychological Safety, we are operating in High Cognitive Diversity and Low Psychological Safety.

 

[Richy_T]

It's astonishing to me to see how quickly people have turned on Peter R (and others and even BU) just because he/they directed some shade at CSW. Not just the obvious CSW ra-ra team but some people I considered a bit more level-headed.

 

[Richy_T]

to destroy any suspected inferior incarnation.

I don't consider CSW to be any kind of incarnation of Satoshi, inferior or otherwise.

 

[AdrianX]

Peter R has made many positive contributions to Bitcoin and still does. For me personally, I'm still invested in bitcoin because of his insights so I'll always be grateful to him. My criticism given the situation should not be considered to reflect an opinion of someone who has turned on him. I consider him a leader in bitcoin and a good friend.

Thanks @Peter R.

PS. Given the low level of trust considering what's at stake, leaders are unfortunately going to get way more flack than they deserve.

People need to consider everything in this space with a bit of skepticism but still focus on fostering an environment that is in the darker blue square above.

Most public perceptions in my view are unrealistic and just blown out of proportion by social influencers who are paid to "correct" the narrative.
[doublepost=1523669201][/doublepost]@Richy_T I was quoting the @theZerg

CSWs issues fester and get worse the longer they are hidden.

I'm not sure what issues he is talking about.

 

[Windowly]

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.

Thank you for your report @Peter R.

I can definitely empathize with both sides here. If one feels that he is being gagged then he definitely should speak out.

On the other hand, it does seem common courtesy to not ridicule and slam equal business partners on twitter no matter how serious the disagreement. I had been a little curious why Nchain was working with people who had such enmity towards them, and am not surprised they finally felt they had to withdraw from the partnership or loose too much face.

nChain does not feed Bitcoin Unlimited as far as I know.

We were equal partners in a joint venture with a common goal.

This is very good. We have enough financially to do quite a lot of good for Bitcoin Cash without help. That being said, I think we can celebrate whenever and whoever helps or invests in the space.

Perhaps after this break in relationship, each side will have the freedom to serve BCH with integrity and somewhat peaceably.

 

[theZerg]

The thing that I'm surprised that people are missing about the plagiarism is its not about a missing citation.

People don't write papers that re-prove what another paper has already proven, even with a citation. They reference the theorems and lemmas in the prior paper and then use them to derive a novel result.

 

[AdrianX]

I think people are missing the forest for the trees. I didn't see that as plagiarism and even if it is we prioritize what we think is important. I'm yet to be convinced that either CSW's or Emin's paper is or is not important.

CSW's "alleged" plagiarism does not bear any relevance to the code BU commit to our implementation.

Should the "alleged" plagiarism affect BU in any way a 3d party arbitrator should make a definitive ruling, not the developers who are on a witch hunt to discredit CSW because he once claimed to be Satoshi.

 

[shadders]

@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?

The paper that you refer to as having received criticism from go11111111 (the one linked in the reddit thread) is a different paper to the one on SSRN. That very much changes the narrative that these sequence of events create.

 

[MarkBLundeberg]

Since you claim that nothing has been added to the conversation except a bunch of technobabble, and that this is all very old news to the Real Scientists in the room, I'm sure you'll be able to point me to the pre-existing refutation of this fallacious segment of the Selfish Mining paper (which isn't some trivial section of the paper, by the way, as has been claimed by many, but is in fact The Problem Statement).

So tell us where we can go to read this refutation and where is the new Selfish Mining paper that presents a new, unassailable Problem Statement that does not rest entirely on faulty assumptions about mining topology? If I missed it, please accept my apologies.

@jessquit, I believe there are actually two debates being had about SM which may be partly responsible for people talking past each other. The paper has two parts (Sections 1-5 and Section 6), where Sections 1-5 stand independently.

1. Is the mathematical model of sections 1-5 a reasonably accurate approach for the effects of SM, assuming given alpha and gamma? Is the notion of gamma appropriate?

2. Is section 6 feasible and does it describe a reasonable type of attack to help increase gamma? Is the proposed "fix" a good or bad thing?

Myself I would say 1 Yes, and 2 No. In words:

1. Yes, i.e., even with gamma = 0 (the lowest possible value), an SM with 35% hash power can achieve higher-than-fair-share block rewards which, assuming all things stay constant, means improved profits (over honest mining) *after* the difficulty adjustment.

2. No, the sybil attack is not feasible. The proposed fix would probably make things worse by *increasing* gamma to 0.5. I believe the present value of gamma is likely nearer to zero.

 

[Zarathustra]

Thank you for your report @Peter R.

I can definitely empathize with both sides here. If one feels that he is being gagged then he definitely should speak out.

On the other hand, it does seem common courtesy to not ridicule and slam equal business partners on twitter no matter how serious the disagreement. I had been a little curious why Nchain was working with people who had such enmity towards them, and am not surprised they finally felt they had to withdraw from the partnership or loose too much face.

This.

I would always criticize people's opinion within my partnership/community/family.
But I cannot do it by constantly slandering them by calling them 'fraud', 'scammer', 'liar' and other ad hominem arguments. Does someone here constantly call a family member a 'fraud' or an 'idiot', or 'toxic'? That would be toxic behavior.

You cannot do that. That's not how families and communities survive. You cannot get consensus that way. This is the behavior of a participant of the society. Society is not based on consensus. It is based on organized violence and competition, each one against everyone, and such behavior within a family/community/partnership leads to the destruction of the family/community/partnership. You use violence against attackers from outside, but not against family members. The behavior of a Dunbar community is completely different to the hypercollectivist society. Cooperation vs. contest.

 

[AdrianX]

SM with 35% hash power can achieve higher-than-fair-share block rewards which, assuming all things stay constant, means improved profits (over honest mining) *after* the difficulty adjustment.

Why is using logic and mathematics to increase ones income from mining bitcoin considered dishonest?

Who defines honest and fair in this instance?

Surly if it is profitable everyone should be allowed to do it?

Why has no one done it?

what are the projected long term negative outcomes from using statistics to enhance revenue by withholding blocks should some one actually succeeds at doing it?

 

[jessquit]

@MarkBLundeberg thanks. I have a different take. When reading a paper like SM I skip 1-5 and go directly to the Problem Statement. This paper purports to identify a problem then, more alarmingly, a solution. So we look at the problem the authors identify and discover that it rests on what amounts to an unproven and actually unlikely assumption. There is no need to review sections 1-5. They are not relevant to the critical, glaring defect in the paper. The paper belongs in the trash can, or at best gets a D+ for having a high mass-to-logic ratio, with big red circles around the painfully glaring Problem Statement.

A tremendous amount of hooplah is being made about doing good academic work and being precise with language and not making untrue, baseless claims. Well, let's start here.

Writing a paper that purports to prove that Bitcoin is hopelessly broken, suggesting a modification to the protocol based on obviously unproven assumptions is bad science. If someone wants to write a paper that presents a Problem Statement that isn't based on laughably unproven assumptions, I'll read it. In the meantime I cannot understand why intelligent people do not hold the author of that shabby paper up to the same level of intellectual honesty that other people are held to.

 

[AdrianX]

This is crazy Trolls are throwing fuel on the fire. Trolls impersonating bots.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8c3pa8/united_we_stand_divided_we_fall_dont_let_them/

 

[jessquit]

@Tomothy: Have you worked in academia?

This isn't academia. This is the real world. Nobody gives a shit if you plagiarize in the real world unless you're selling the document you copied, and that's called "copyright" and doesn't apply in this case. All it does is make the plagiarizer look like an idiot and an asshole.

 

[Richy_T]

However, Doctor CSW is supposed to have worked in academia so you would hope he would be familiar with conventions and practices of that sphere.

I can see with Peter Rizun, a real academic with more than a few peer reviewed papers behind his name would be irked by this behavior, to be honest.

 

[MarkBLundeberg]

Why is using logic and mathematics to increase ones income from mining bitcoin considered dishonest?

Who defines honest and fair in this instance?

Surly if it is profitable everyone should be allowed to do it?

Why has no one done it?

what are the projected long term negative outcomes from using statistics to enhance revenue by withholding blocks should some one actually succeeds at doing it?

I agree that the terms 'selfish' and 'honest' were probably not the best choice as they impart moral coloring. They should have chosen something like 'withholding miner' and 'simple miner'. I am not surprised they did it though -- part of the science industry is to make your publications more sexy and cool since that's what wins more grant money.

The reason nobody has done block-withholding strategies is likely due to the high hash power required. Moreover I think even if someone did do it and succeeded in winning more BTC rewards than their proportional share, it would would be a sour victory: the news of the strategy being used would damage the real value of BTC and hence cause a drop in actual realized profits. In other words, even granting that the model is correct, it is not a complete description since $/BTC is not included. I don't expect the strategies will ever be used and I don't think people need to seriously worry about them.

There are plenty of things to criticize in the SM paper: it was overhyped; the sybil attack is likely not feasible; the proposed fix may make things worse; the model is not complete enough to allow hard conclusions. But for some strange reason, many critics decided to say there were mathematical errors. This backfired since people like myself could just go and check the math, which was all kosher. Now when I hear people criticise the SM paper I have the knee jerk thought "sheesh, another one of these mathematical illiterates?". I do my best to moderate such reactions but others may not be as successful.

By the way I believe there are some other fascinating situations to consider. In particular what happens if the block-withholding technique is used on Bitcoin Cash? On one hand you need a lot less hash power (currently, you only would need ~5% of the SHA256 power to do this, although heck with this you might as well do a majority attack). On the other hand, after the difficulty adjusts, more 'honest' miners should join mining which would remove all advantage. On the third hand, however, if miners catch on that their blocks are being orphaned at unusually high rates, they may decide to flee from mining BCH which would actually make life even easier for the block-withholding miner!

 

[jessquit]

@Richy_T your point is fully taken yet the asshole in question isn't participating as an academic but as an entrepreneur. Those rules are orthogonal and do not necessarily apply. I reiterate that a certain notable historic figure was also a charlatan who treated friends, family, and co-workers like shit all while selling other people's work that he plagiarized and which he himself didn't understand, and for 10-20 years was called out by his industry as an asshole and a conman. Those who bet against this charlatan were sorely disappointed in the long run.

Sometimes the world just doesn't work the way we want it to be. We ignore people who don't play by our rules at our own risk, and fight them to our own disadvantage. Better to learn how to harness the energy in a wild horse than to put it down.

 

[awemany]

@jessquit:

Those who bet against this charlatan were sorely disappointed in the long run.

You keep saying this - but what exactly is "betting against the charlatan" for you?

Taking selfish mining too serious?

For the record, I was a critic of EGS' overhyped "Bitcoin is broken" narrative when he came out with it and still think that we're likely o.k. ignoring this issue as a likely irrelevant detail. @MarkBLundeberg put it well, including the sexy science angle.

But then, I also am not objecting to contained, careful fixes to make SM less likely. I do not want to go the Bitcoin-NG route yet, as that's too drastic of a change IMO.

So, tell me, am I "betting against the charlatan" with this kind of opinion, and if so why?

I also see no correlation between my opinion on SM and the reputation or lack thereof of certain folks in this space, contrary to what you seem to insinuate repeatedly. But maybe I am reading you wrong. Nor do I see that in many others. Some maybe. As said, there's always some tribalism.