Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

@AdrianX: I think I see your point about the debate environment. But I interpret it in a quite different way: I think it is exactly healthy if Peter R can call bullshit, bullshit. And to address the "gag order" naming that came up somewhere: As far as I can see, this is simply him being put in the position of risking funding for a prominent BU project for doing the right thing and speaking out about certain issues. Not because there was any written NDA involved and signed by Peter, but just due to the monetary interest. But, @Peter R., please correct me if I am wrong.

And again, nChain terminated the agreement.

And to address @jessquit point about the real world here: As much as it is the real world that folks ignore the healthy standards of acadamia which are really just common sense in the end (and I am not at all saying academia or its standards are healthy per se!), as much is it the real world that people will rightfully call bullshit on bullshit. You seem to present an is as an ought here, and to be honest, I find that despicable.

And regarding psychological safety: It is always nice to have a civil environment. But it is at least as uncivil to bullshit to create a cult as it is to be "rude".

And, to be honest and at risk of being called a misogynist arsehole once more, "psychological safety" reeks of the "SJW safe space concept" to me Sounds nice, sounds desirable, but will end up with exactly the wrong people ruling from the shadows. And as a nice, non-arsehole person, it is very easy to get pulled into that kind of ruling situation, exactly because one wants to give the benefit of the doubt just a little bit too many times.

Finally on the giganetwork, and @Juan Garavaglia : For myself, the giganetwork so far mostly presented itself as a bunch of 5 quite capable mining nodes across the world one could, when available, do performance testing on. But I guess there was also funding for work involved which is likely the much bigger chunk, money wise.

Maybe it needs to be scaled back now, I don't know. But I personally think the former part (a network to test code on) is the more immediately useful and cheaper part. So my 2 satoshis and personal interest in this would be to keep that part going first

Which is not at all to say that I regard funding and travel and the other parts of the giganetwork initiative as worthless. But I think the former gives the more immediate bang for the buck. But I am biased and have my own interest in this

 

[solex]

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.

I recall reading it at the time, and it was a rebuttal of Emin's selfish mining paper. So, it concerns the very same subject, therefore within the sequence of events. It has disappeared, leaving the assumption is that it was an early draft of the paper now on SSRN. Maybe the changes are extensive and the whole basis of the rebuttal is different? Maybe not.

 

[Roy Badami]

Thank you @Peter R I fully support your actions.

And to those who try to dismiss this by saying selfish mining isn't a big deal: you're missing the point. This isn't about selfish mining, it's about academic rigour. Peter and Vitalik are to be commended for having the strength to publicly address the elephant in the room.

And for those who haven't read Vitalik's two posts on this, you should:

 

[singularity]

FYI Ian will donate $20,000 to the gigablocks testnet project.

 

[Roy Badami]

Also, count me amongst those were were becoming more than a little uncomfortable with BUs association with nChain. Financial impact aside, I see this parting of ways as no bad thing.

 

[Bagatell]

 

[Tom Zander]

That tweet, THAT is the reason why most of the BCH industry is against CSW.

When you refuse to be part of his yes-men, you get vigorously downvoted, attacked and made to look like you are the worst enemy of all the things you actually stand for.

 

[Bagatell]

"When you refuse to be part of his yes-men, you get vigorously downvoted, attacked and made to look like you are the worst enemy of all the things you actually stand for."

Sounds familiar..

 

[bitsko]

Tell me folks, if the base assumption is that a minority of the hashrate being dishonest can effectively game bitcoin, what follows from that assumption?

Does it follow that we cannot trust the hashrate, and that one must fully validate all network activity themselves?

Should BU then focus on being a collective of non-mining nodes? We are making great strides courting UASF, LTC, and Core fans. Should we embrace it?

 

[awemany]

Blockstream at least didn't try to install themselves as a fake Satoshi. They tried to downplay his original contributions and hide the fact that they steered Bitcoin off course with all kinds of underhanded tactics for sure.

But then, I also think Blockstream was much more damaging, due to the tight grip on the communication channels.

CSW doesn't have that advantage.
[doublepost=1523706300][/doublepost]@bitsko: Full validation doesn't help against broken incentives. But incentives aren't broken with SM, just the mapping to software is.

Which is an issue, certainly less than "Bitcoin is broken" but certainly more than "nothing to worry about.".

 

[Tom Zander]

if the base assumption is that a minority of the hashrate being dishonest can effectively game bitcoin

This is the fun part, that was never stated. SM is a technical paper and ignores the things like nash-equilibrium. There is not, and has not been, any risk of SM being used in real life on Bitcoin.

Just because you can do something technically doesn't mean its economically wise. But when a researcher knows how to do something technically, that is a really good thing to know to understand the whole situation better.

 

[shadders]

I recall reading it at the time, and it was a rebuttal of Emin's selfish mining paper. So, it concerns the very same subject, therefore within the sequence of events. It has disappeared, leaving the assumption is that it was an early draft of the paper now on SSRN. Maybe the changes are extensive and the whole basis of the rebuttal is different? Maybe not.

The two articles addressed some overlapping topics but were clearly different documents. The one published on the website only uses the word 'selfish' once. Fair enough I can see how the assumption might be made but the assumption is incorrect. If you want to check the document from the website it's on the waybackmachine: https://web.archive.org/web/2016050...ht.net/consistency-distribution-transactions/

You used the publication of this document and the mistaken assumption that is a version of the SSRN document to support your assertion that a privately shared document could not have been leaked by Peter because CSW himself had already published it on his own website. Since we've established that's not the case the question of leaking becomes open again.

The document in question might have been put on SSRN but it was not publicized in anyway nor could it have been found without explicit searching which is unlikely given that no one other than members of a private slack channel knew it existed. The link was shared in that private slack channel and CSW was clear that it was a draft. Ask anyone who was there (other than peter and elliotolds) if the assumption of confidentiality was not completely obvious and known to all. Everything in that slack was at the time. I have a log that clearly shows CSW saying it's a draft in a conversation that Peter was involved in, in the same channel that Peter was very actively engaged in at the time. Even factoring in that SSRN is a publicly accessible website, it is clear that publishing a link to it on a high traffic forum like bitco.in was not an act of good faith.

This was the beginning of this whole sorry mess that led to 'the bet'. That snowballed into one of the most sorry episodes in BCH's short history. I've watched closely with dismay for a long time and kept silent because I had hoped it would fizzle out. But it's apparent that Peter won't let that happen. So I will address a few more aspects of this ridiculous situation later.

 

[bitsko]

This is the fun part, that was never stated. SM is a technical paper and ignores the things ...

that's about the gist of it.

noone thinks it's really going to happen and this hot mess of implications slips in the back door.
[doublepost=1523714798][/doublepost][16:09:47] <peter_r> ...: I just think that Eyal and Sirer's conclusion is correct given their model. I don't actually think it is a real threat however for several reasons:
[16:09:47] <peter_r> 1. It requires that only 1 pool is using the SM strategy and that other pools don't deploy counter-measures.
[16:09:47] <peter_r> 2. It requires that members of the SM pool don't "cheat," even though they can earn more by cheating.
[16:09:47] <peter_r> 3. It requires keeping the strategy going (and working) for several difficulty periods in order to recoup your losses you suffer at the beginning of the attack.
[16:10:46] <peter_r> @csw: SM is definitely detectable! The orphan rate will shoot through the roof.


so what's the point then... what follows...?

 

[Tomothy]

[16:09:47] <peter_r> ...: I just think that Eyal and Sirer's conclusion is correct given their model.

What if it is not the correct model? What are the implications, what does it mean if the paper does not mirror reality , i.e., that e&s paper doesn't actually model bitcoin but only a simulation of a belief of how they thought it works. I.e., mesh vs small world or whatever.

It seems like there is tacit acknowledgement that the E&S model may not represent bitcoin or support the conclusions one would otherwise derive from it. The conclusion flawed because of an untested premise along with anything branching off. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

[bitsko]

ever circle jerk in a sterile environment?

 

[awemany]

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

Schon gar nicht der schädliche Einfluss von orgonotisch schlecht geladenem Gewebe oder eines gepanzerten Beckens.

Is that talking about this stuff?

Ehhh.... believe in whatever crazy stuff you want, but I've got better things to do.

 

[jessquit]

You seem to present an is as an ought here

Hey, slow down there. I can see why you might think that, but I have been critical of this plagiarism. I want no part of it. I mean to state that it can nevertheless be a winning strategy, do not dismiss it.

 

[bitsko]

I have an idea, we could start a new branch of bitcoin unlimited directly focused on node sovereignty.

We can call it the BUASF movement.

maybe Tom can lead this branch...

 

[awemany]

@jessquit: Ok, fair enough, I take that back then. Though I don't think it won't be a winning strategy either. The destructiveness that comes along with it can be witnessed right now.

 

[AdrianX]

@awemany thanks for your input I mostly agree but not enough to accolade it with a "like click"

I think it is exactly healthy if Peter R can call bullshit, bullshit. And to address the "gag order" naming that came up somewhere: As far as I can see, this is simply him being put in the position of risking funding for a prominent BU project for doing the right thing and speaking out about certain issues.

There is an infinite amount of BS in the word, we need to used intelligence and wisdom to focus on mitigating the BS that is important.

Peter and CSW spent over an hour discussing SM the day of the Gigablock test net agreement meeting, in no way did Peter or CSW come across as rude or disrespectful Peter held his own in the meeting with nChain. Time being limited we agreed to focus on more important issues SM was not important nor was it related to the agreement in any way it presented as a friendly side spar affirming we are equals in this meeting.

After the meeting, @Peter R said he intends to continue that debate online (a skeleton from the 2013 closet) my understanding of Peter's explanation is it would project a healthy relationship of trust where we can cooperate without agreeing on everything and it would unite a divided community, I supported it.

I thought Peter had a great idea almost ingenious. What happened I thought was Over The Top when Peter began to beat a dead corps once CSW had agreed to retract the paper. In my understanding nChain had taken more of a public beating, I was relieved someone backed down and the goal had been achieved.

If, and that's a big if, nChain issued a gag order (I don't think they did, I think Peter is reacting emotionally) it would probably a rational response in reaction to what just happened and not be as restrictive as he is projecting, I'd like to be proven wrong.

People need to be free to speak there minds, we call BS on the BS that matter and we should refrain from holding resentments. What Peter was doing looked to me like a witch hunt, calling CSW a scammer, liar, fraud, etc. I'd add Peter almost cost the agreement up front using the fact no money had changed hands to accuse nChain of being a fraud and a scam, a self-sabotaging accusation. I relate to nChain and could see they may not fund the project, why would they want to cooperate with someone who self-identifies as the enemy, (so yes I'm also guilty of issuing a gag order!)

I sent Peter a PM asking him to stand down given CSW had retracted his paper. ie. Look at the big picture we want to win the war and winning this battle was not part of the strategy or the plan he discussed.

By no means, should my communication to be considered a Gag Order and @Peter R you are welcome to publish it.

I acknowledge that Peter may have felt his freedom to express his personal opinion was under attack, in a way he was being asked to keep his personal vendetta against CSW personal and to behave like a scientist and focus on the science.

Peter was using the objective facts to justify his personal opinion on CSW (an inferred projection) in a disdainful way. Given nChain was a partner, not the enemy it would be more appropriate to do it in a respectful way much like he discussed the issue with CSW in person.

Should a fundamental impasse arise, really is the final judge, and wisdom prevailing We pick our battles, we don't fight them all. I felt focusing effort to destroy someone's reputation on a side issue tangential to the larger issue of making Bitcoin Cash Better Cash is not in the best interests of BU or the interests Bitcoin.

If you want to know what I think is wrong in the world today its rationalism being used to justify fundamentalism, no offense to anyone I'm just expressing my opinion at first I was a little disappointed but I pas no judgment it may all work out for the better.

This fable expresses by my understanding of the situation.