Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Tomothy]

An interesting idea, but since it's allegedly 'free' for bch it doesn't really apply to our camp. This just means it's applicable to the other camps. The rough thing about patent infringement is when you know the patent exists, violations start to become 'knowing' infringements. This takes big balls and bigger pockets or airtight anonymity. However, the other issue is usage. I.e., you rip off Nchain Tech, say the threshold signature idea which benefits exchanges/users by eliminating or other wise reducing counter party risk. If the exchange starts using a bootleg version of nchain's threshold tech, (infringing on this patent) they become the larger target. So someone protecting the IP doesn't go after the anonymous no-name creator, but goes after the Exchange, the hosting providers, anyone touching that whole chain. So just creating the tech for a competing coin isn't enough, you have to be able to use it and in using it you become vulnerable to the long arm of the law. As the Lost in Space Netflix reboot says, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! Danger Danger!

 

[Peter R]

"An interesting idea, but since it's allegedly 'free' for bch it doesn't really apply to our camp. This just means it's applicable to the other camps." --@Tomothy


Replace the word "camp" with "cult" and the danger becomes obvious.

 

[Tom Zander]

to take any released nchain tech

LOL.

I think your and my definition of 'released' are quite different.

 

[Tomothy]

I tried Peter's suggestion, see results below. I don't think it changes anything. I.e., "Replace the word "camp" with "cult" and the danger becomes obvious" PeterR


"An interesting idea, but since it's allegedly 'free' for BCH it doesn't really apply to our CULT. This just means it's applicable to the other CULTS."

I'd say switching it to ARMY is better. I'm sorry but I don't share the get-along, let's all be friends, kumbayah attitudes between bitcoin, litecoin, ethereum, tron, cardano, monero and all the other flavors of the hour. In all honesty, the only coin universally hated by all, is the coin most here support, BCH. Why? Because bitcoin is broken and allows the other coins to thrive. BCH works which is why it's a threat. So from a winner take all viewpoint, let's try using "ARMY".

"An interesting idea, but since it's allegedly 'free' for bch it doesn't really apply to our ARMY. This just means it's applicable to the other ARMY."

So, it might not taste well but this is literally still an us vs. them endeavor. But this is my personal belief, as a BCH maximalist If bitcoin hit's critical mass and global adoption we lose. It ends up like one of the thousand other no name coins that died. So you can call it a cult if you want, you can call it late for dinner, but at the end of the day it's still us or them. Miner's don't have to support the BCH chain. We compete for hashpower, for users, for global adoption and price. This is economic warfare at it's finest.


Re: Tomz- "SOON" So yeah, maybe 6/2018 or 7/2018 we see a release in the wild... "SOON" "TWO WEEKS" lol

 

[wrstuv31]

Rogue miners will be punished by honest miners.

I wonder if the predictability of the mining networks response to a selfish miner could be influenced by FUD and censorship.

Ideally at a large scale the network effect will harshly punish any wrongdoers. It's as if Bitcoin is a method to build good money, but is not good money in itself.

And the claims made later in the paper - that this creates an existential threat to the entire ecosystem - is balderdash.

Couldn't agree more, the papers reason to be is not to point out a mathematical oddity, but to point a flaw in the real world mining network.



@Peter R From my perspective, your cartoon is propaganda.

 

[Tom Zander]

tried Peter's suggestion, see results below.

I think you missed the point that what BU/Flowee/Ver etc call BCH doesn't have to be the same thing that nchain calls BCH. The cult in this little bedtime story is then the church of nchain-yes-men. Exit the cult, you become a target.

 

[Tomothy]

I think you're missing the point Tom. You may not like Craig playing in your sandbox or even showing up at the playground. But my question is how do you prevent Craig from playing there?

If you're suggesting a new Hardfork is needed to excise NChain? How does that work? You can't really pickup your toys and go home. It doesn't work like that. Ultimately everyone plays together or they go play at a different play ground. Which in the end is still play ground versus play ground or army versus army or cult vs cult or coin vs coin.

(For example, say the new fork has more hash-power, well, Nchain Just follows the new fork and add their hash-power thereby securing new fork. Again, only way I see as preventing Nchain & Craig from playing in whatever's considered BCH is by derailing the May 2018 hardfork. Even that is probably insufficient, since allegedly all the stuff patented can work onchain w/out the new opcodes. What I'm saying, is absent bringing in Segwit, Nchain & Craig are still here to stay. As are the supporters of Craig. Easiest is to try to get along and accept it. Something about the stages of denial? )

 

[AdrianX]

Given that I don't like building sandcastles out of bullshit but rather want to build the new money for the world, I don't see the contributions at all as positive as you do.

I don't see them as positive, I see them as noise. (I like your stand castle analogy - you could be giving him more creative credit than he deserves if he is not capable of delivering.) I agree we need to build the new global money empirically. (I see this nChain divorce as a very good thing, we are potentially formidable competition.

If CSW does have substance to back up the noise then he is laying a foundation for political real estate and credibility. Only Time will tell.
It could be problematic for his critics if he does deliver on some of the things he talks about, his critics lose credibility as a result.
I don't think people need to go out of there way for CSW if he delivers anything of value, asses it, uses it if it's useful. If it is not useful ignore it.
[doublepost=1523909647][/doublepost]

You seem to want a more mellow approach, I guess, but I think the stronger pushback that Peter did is actually very valuable. I guess we simply have to agree to disagree on this

I want people to be respectful of each other, treat people like you would treat them face to face in front of your friends. I think @Peter is doing a fantastic job. Sometimes I just don't understand what people are doing.

 

[AdrianX]

An interesting idea, but since it's allegedly 'free' for bch it doesn't really apply to our camp. This just means it's applicable to the other camps.

In relation to my reply to @awemany's post, CSW is selling noise at this time. He either has tech to back it up, or he doesn't. If he does, who defines BCH? If he doesn't who cares.

So his detractors are at this time scoring political points that may be reversed while the facts are not on the table, the political points only get counted in the future when and if he delivers.

The thing I like about this game is, it's more effective if we all have different strategies and approaches, it's gorilla warfare. BU is like Howl's Moving Castle, and @Peter R is like Howl ;-)
[doublepost=1523911529,1523910879][/doublepost]

Replace the word "camp" with "cult" and the danger becomes obvious.

The solution to the projected IP problems is don't incorporate IP in the protocol. let proprietary IP function on top or outside of the protocol layer.

AsicBoost is proprietary IP, Core has already failed at not incorporating IP into the protocol layer.

Core have taken proprietary IP outside of the protocol layer and split it in two.

Good IP (the version they incorporated in the protocol ) and Bad IP (the IP deployed by people, not in the Core inner circle.)

They call this Covert AsicBoost = bad and Overt AsicBoost = Good.

 

[go1111111]

CSW appears to be contributing to BCH's success more positive than 99% of people invested in it even after you put all the contested theoretical technobabble aside

on the other hand he has good intention and he is contributing to bitcoin cash. Bitcoin cash is still in its very early stage and we should welcome everyone who wants to contribute to contribute regardless of their personality or way of doing things

Can someone list CSW's actual accomplishments for BCH so far?

Josh Garza was also pretty good at getting attention. He was fantastic at saying he was going to do lots of cool stuff for Paycoin/GAW in the future. If we need more of this kind of stuff in BCH, maybe we should raise a legal fund to appeal Garza's conviction, then recruit him to go on tour with Craig and spread the word about BCH. Someone has to sell BCH to the masses, why not Garza??

At the end of the day, somebody still has to sell Bitcoin Cash to the world. Who is going to take up the mantle and push for global adoption?

Exactly. How much will you pledge toward my "free Garza" campaign?

 

[_bc]

Wasn't it that a 51 percent attacks allows you to doublespend a confirmed tx, while a selfish mining 33% attacks allows you to get a little more blocks than the other miners? Seems like a huge difference for me

Indeed, good point. And I'd like to see a paper exploring two 33% SMs - competing against each other

 

[AdrianX]

@go1111111 what we define as a contribution is subjective so no list could be definitively objective. a contribution I may consider positive you may consider negative.

nChain has given money to projects like GigaBlock test net (one the majority of our members agree is positive), Electron, Yours and Centbee, all projects that I think have a positive impact on the ecosystem. CSW has also done many talks, which have points we can all pick holes in as some of the "purported facts" are not facts. But by my assessment, they seem to have a net overall benefit.

 

[Tomothy]

Can someone list CSW's actual accomplishments for BCH so far?

He's made people excited about Bitcoin Cash. For better or worse, people are talking about BCH and positive about it's future.

Josh Garza was also pretty good at getting attention. He was fantastic at saying he was going to do lots of cool stuff for Paycoin/GAW in the future. If we need more of this kind of stuff in BCH, maybe we should raise a legal fund to appeal Garza's conviction, then recruit him to go on tour with Craig and spread the word about BCH. Someone has to sell BCH to the masses, why not Garza?

So one of two things happen. Craig fails to deliver any of his 'technobabble' solutions that have been discussed and promoted that have been so loudly called out by everyone as bad or he delivers. Do you disagree that the threshold stuff sounds cool? The hidden BCH in Pictures? He either never delivers or delivers. So the issue is what happens next if he delivers. As a community, how do you move forward at that point in time?

I'm saddened by you comparing Craig to Garza. So far, I don't see Craig advocating for an NCHAIN ICO to line his pockets. He's not selling bridges in Brooklyn. People may not like his personality, patents, or how he conducts his business, but as a voluntary system that centers around greed none of that really matters at the protocol level for BCH. If you don't like him, beat him at what he's trying to do. Create alternatives and gain support. And so far, as suggested above, none of the changes proposed by NChain, if implemented, occur at the protocol level.

Honestly, if you Peter and Tomz hate Craig so much, push out a BU HF Client that doesn't adopt Nchain's desired OpCodes. Start whipping the troops up into a frenzy on reddit and social media. Have everyone boycott ABC's fork code. Don't increase the blocksize and don't add the extra changes. This way NCchain can't as easily develop or use their evil Patents on top of the BCH protocol. Sabotage BCH and BU to spite Craig and Nchain because that makes more sense then ignoring someone you don't like or waiting to see if they ever deliver.

 

[Tom Zander]

You may not like Craig playing in your sandbox or even showing up at the playground.

Hey, don't include me in your war.

However I see this as a war and I want my side to win at all costs.

I think its clear you are on a different side than most of the people here, thats Ok. The "at all costs" comes across loud and clear.

if you Peter and Tomz hate Craig so much

suggesting a new Hardfork is needed to excise NChain?

Can you politely stop polarizing this by putting words in peoples mouths too?
[doublepost=1523915736][/doublepost]To be clear, I don't have any feelings towards Craig. I hardly think about him at all.

 

[bitsko]

BU Clashic with X-No technology powered by Node-X consensus sovereignty

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I have accompanied a few complex projects with banks and insurance companies.
The team leader was a non-academic polymath und has been called a liar, charlatan, clown and con artist by the nerds, architects, risk managers, engineers, forex dealers etc., because he didn't know the deeper details of their discipline and indeed lied occasionally.

None of those experts have been able to manage those complex, multidisciplinary projects; and different banks and insurance companies repeatedly came back to the 'clown' to ask him to initiate and manage those projects, even though (or because) they knew his character and habits.

This fits perfectly with this story

http://vu.hn/bitcoin origins.html

Some of you may know it, it is very long, a guy from New Zealand claiming to be the third part of Team Prometheus, writing at least interesting explanations of some details / mysteries. He describes someone from Sydney, who behaves a lot like Craig, as the organizer, a not so genious, but organizing and widly interested guy, who cares about patents, whitepapers, fame, plays up his knowledge, but gets obviously caught in lying ... the author is really pissed when the organizer of team prometheus just takes his emails to build a whitepaper from them. This was really funny.

Again, about CSW: I like that he is called out, I like that Peter does not let nChain pay him to keep silent. But I don't like how it has turned out. CSW made someone (himself? Ayre?) invest millions in Bitcoin Cash startups, and he makes broad and loud and strong presentations to promote it. As long as the only problem with him is that he is a lyer, publishes technobubble, or claims patents for technologies nobody needs to use, or thinks that mining has memory, his contribution to Bitcoin Cash count on a net positive.

It would be something else when we see him influence development of Bitcoin Cash for patents, ego or his I-am-Satoshi story. I think there are some indications he does. But as long as this is not the case, I really don't understand the anger against him.

 

[solex]

The big picture is all important. Anyone who wants Bitcoin Cash to fulfil the original 2008 Bitcoin white paper vision should care about adoption. New users, new holders, new business use-cases.

The person who has done the most to accelerate public adoption of BCH is Roger. Another who is also spreading the word is Calvin. They bring in new users. The sponsorship of Ayr United is a great move to raise the profile of BCH. Ryan is doing an enormous amount as Yours grows. There are many different initiatives each adding to a greater whole.

Craig also brings in new users. How many other people are talking at meet-ups around the world with hundreds of people attending? There was one in South Korea recently with 500 people. These are the life-blood of a growing cryptocurrency. Outreach is Craig's true strength. Jimmy at nChain also does a lot of hard work to drive media interest.

The SM dispute has made clear Craig's limitations on the technical front. Well fine, anything he writes about BCH software development should be subjected to technical criticism material to the specific matter at hand. This feedback builds up a corpus on its own and adds counterbalance for the historical record.

However, I am disappointed to see ad hominem language on social media between BCH users as that does turn people off, and makes people feel like divesting and moving to other coins where there is less noise.

 

[shadders]

You mention "draft" and this puzzles me because the paper is not marked up as a draft and SSRN is specifically an open access repository for working papers, not drafts.

I've sent many documents to people that weren't marked as drafts. Simply saying it's a draft seems to be enough for most people. And it is not uncommon at all for people to post drafts on SSRN.

As to the allegation of plagiarism...

It is well known that multiple versions of this document were shown to various people around that time (July 2017). Some were word documents some were PDFs. It was in fact being very actively worked on not only by CSW but also by other nChain staff as well as versions being sent to a 3rd party editing company Editage. Many versions of the document contain comments about intended later edits. Including:

Please be sure to update this number once all changes are finalized.

The typo in this citation will be resolved once the citation format is corrected (changed to Vancouver style).

Now the following point is important because CSW's has been characterized as willfully attempting to plagiarize the work of Liu & Wang. The following citation was actually present in some of the earlier versions of the document.

This analysis relies heavily on a matching of a Roulette strategy that is analogous to the Selfish mining strategy. This strategy was propounded by Wen Liu & Jinting Wang in “A strong limit theorem on gambling systems” (2003)

At some point a version was created that was missing the citation. I don't know how but the most obvious explanation is that a later version branched off one that was made before the citation was added. Given the amount of activity that was going on at the time with the document with multiple parties involved it is not hard to see how this could happen. Document version control is an administrative function that sometimes goes awry.

I do think it would have been better if the acknowledgement had been in the text of the paper rather than the intended footnote. However, this makes it clear that CSW's intent was make it known that his work relied heavily upon the Liu & Wang paper, borrowing from it to make his point with some adjustments. It is not uncommon for people build on the work of another, and say it summarizes things well, and make slight twists to make a point.

A PDF version of the document can be found here: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=00729637117461182342

A Word version of the document can be found here: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=07377534997138073836

It will be noted that file modification date on the word document metadata is dated a couple of days ago, this is because the original version was password protected and saving the unlocked version resets this date. I have made a screencast of opening the locked version of the file, showing the modification date, saving an unlocked version and uploading it to the link above. I recommend turning on subtitles to help understand what is going on. I will leave the video up for a few days.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think you missed the point that what BU/Flowee/Ver etc call BCH doesn't have to be the same thing that nchain calls BCH. The cult in this little bedtime story is then the church of nchain-yes-men. Exit the cult, you become a target.

For every CSW yes-man, there a two CSW no-men cult members in our forum.
Waste of time.

 

[freetrader]

Links I found useful:

https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/23/open-patent-licensing/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentleft