Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[SPAZTEEQ]

There has been concern these patented projects will cause problems re: forks. Is this necessarily the case? In much the same way BCH is the same chain back to the beginning, why wouldn't a patented app implemented before fork be enforceable on both chains, or not?

 

[freetrader]

@SPAZTEEQ : It's not necessarily the case, but if you're going to build a business licensing on one or more of these patents, you'll want some strong assurances that your service will not be put out of business at the whim of the patent holder when there is some controversial fork.

I think this could be achieved by simply defining properly what is mean by "Bitcoin Cash".

For example, one could define 'Bitcoin Cash' it as current BCH (i.e. based on the August 1 fork block) and any future forks descended from that ledger.

If you want to get pickier, you could choose the fork block created by the 13 November 2017 upgrade.

What matters is that such a license is fair, reasonable and not easily revocable.

However, if it is discriminatory (e.g. "Bitcoin Cash only") then expect other companies to patent their application ideas for other blockchains in similar way. If only someone had patented this idea of discriminatory patents, this would not be a problem. /s

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

Yes, it's pretty obvious that person (2) is CSW. The question is: is it a fabricated fairytale or not. I don't know!
If not, CSW is the initiator of the Bitcoin project and - to quote Ian Grigg - also "the leader of the Satoshi Nakamoto team".

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1122#post-57051

 

[Norway]

I have now described the software for the Ka-ching device in extremely high level program language (english) here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/the-ka-ching-project.10113/#post-62544

What I really need, is a hardware person that knows NFC and micro controller programming to get this started.

I can fund some of this myself, and get external funding to this open software/open hardware project as soon as we get a functional prototype going. I can most likely also get some funding before the prototype is up and running.

But I need a hardware person as described above that can tell me what off the shelf toys I should order from China and commit to some development for a sum of money we agree on.

If you know a hardware person as described, please put him/her in contact with me, and I'll get the first money.

The Credit Card Killer Ka-ching is just too good. Please help me to get it off the ground.

 

[theZerg]

.Gif had it all locked up until .png and .jpg. If the nchain patent license is not sufficiently general (allowing forks, for example), we need to include equivalent or better technology, even if doing so means more changes. For example, BLS signatures has thresholds already. And you also get fungibility improvements. But adding a new signature scheme is clearly a very large change, even if it would be quite isolated in the code.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

I think this could be achieved by simply defining properly what is mean by "Bitcoin Cash".

Okay, could this definition be achieved thru the patent, if patent holder were so inclined?

 

[bitsko]

I'd like to see BU innovating as always in contrast to potentially just creating libre versions of tech that would already be able to be deployed on the bch chain....

of course the beauty of permissionlessness is that if someone wants to make sure a tech is available to everyone, they get to scratch that itch by creating a novel solution and noone can stop them.

 

[freetrader]

Okay, could this definition be achieved thru the patent, if patent holder were so inclined?

I'd say this is a matter of the license.

The patents themselves refer to "blockchain", because of course you need to be able to beat down anyone who uses them on something resembling an other blockchain. But who is "other"?

e.g.
A method and system for securing computer software using a distributed hash table and a blockchain

 

[cypherdoc]

@deadalnix

why don't any of the Bitcoin ABC downloads have sig and hashsum files?

https://download.bitcoinabc.org/0.17.0/linux/

 

[Norway]

Winning!

---------------------------------------------------

Dear Stein,

Thank you for contacting Expedia about your feedback regarding Bitcoin.

Your feedback is important to the decisions we make to improve our travel services. Rest assured that we will share your comments with our team and will definitely consider to set up Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

Hoping for your continued business with Expedia.


Josua
Expedia Customer Service Team

-----Original Message-----
From: mail@shludvigsen.com
Sent: Apr 12, 2018 3:35:18 AM
To: cspcustcare-en-us-x-exp@customercare.expedia.com
Additional Recipients:
Subject: RE: Hotelsayment & Receipt - Case ID : [REQ:M-20139070]

Hi!
You don''t support Bitcoin Cash (BCH). You only support Bitcoin Core (BTC) that is no longer useful as a payment currency.
Please ask Coinbase to help you set this up. Coinbase supports Bitcoin Cash (BCH).


Sendt fra min Samsung Galaxy-smarttelefon.
-------- Opprinnelig melding --------Fra: cspcustcare-en-us-x-exp@customercare.expedia.com Dato: 12.04.2018 09:14 (GMT+07:00) Til: mail@shludvigsen.com Emne: RE: Hotelsayment & Receipt - Case ID : [REQ:M-20139070]

Dear Stein,

We understand that you want to book a reservation using Bitcoin. Rest assured that Expedia can provide this option for you.

You can book a hotel reservation on "www.expedia.com" using Bitcoin as payment option. You can choose this option at the payment page. In Review and book your trip, we will connect you to Coinbase and you will see a message saying you have 15 minutes to complete your order. You will land on the Expedia Coinbase payment page where you can complete you payment from you "Coinbase.com" account. Once completed, you will be redirected to "www.expedia.com" for booking confirmation page.

Expedia hopes that these information are useful.


Audie
Expedia Customer Service Team

-----Original Message-----
From: mail@shludvigsen.com
Sent: Apr 7, 2018 5:12:23 AM
To: cspcustcare-en-us-x-exp@customercare.expedia.com
Additional Recipients:
Subject: Hotelsayment & Receipt

Name: Stein Ludvigsen
Itinerary Number:
Message: Why don''''t you accept Bitcoin Cash (BCH) for payments? It''''s much faster, cheaper and reliable than Bitcoin Core (BTC). I couldn''''t book my room with you now, because you don''''t accept Bitcoin Cash.

 

[sgbett]

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 actually think disagreement and even some infighting is very healthy, as it shows me people care about Bitcoin/BCH and - as an additional reason on my side of this disagreement - do not want a Faketoshi as the spokesperson of BCH.

Of course, it is also a potential drain of energy and spending 100% of one's time debunking CSW's bullshit might not be the most productive use. But I think most of us who are annoyed by him know that quite well.

However, the conflict around CSW and his bullshitting needs to be very visible for anyone new or unaware to notice that there's at least two sides to this and be able to form their own opinion, and Peter did a great job there.

On /r/btc, you sometimes get the impression we have an army of people cheering him on, lots of new accounts licking his boots. Whereas lots of the old-timers, including yourself, including most of BU, are at least somewhat critical and aware of him bullshitting.

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.

If anything, I see failure of nChain and CSW to overtake/usurp BCH as the positive contribution their existence is (indirectly) causing in the space. And with their software patent threat, we're not past this danger yet.

As you say, BU and nChain separating is probably a blessing in disguise.

As somewhat of an old-timer, it seems to me that the trap many are falling into these days is being "sure" of things. Uncertainty keeps you focused in finding the truth. Once people "find their truth" they stop looking. I think that's a mistake.

Think about what made you question Blockstream / Core et al back in the day, what sets you apart from those that chose to follow.

I think about when I first got into Bitcoin, slashdot was the place you got tech news, reddit was on the up but slashdot was where I found it, where it was discussed - or should I say berated. To believe in Bitcoin then mean being massively contrarian. All your "peers" were so convinced it was a scam, it wouldn't work, you name it. They had already found their truth.

I'm not saying CSW is satoshi (I'm not saying he isn't). Im not saying the stuff he publishes is totally. legit, (I'm not saying it isn't). I'm saying dig a little deeper and come to your own conclusions.

SM debacle really shook things up for me. Mostly the way people conducted themselves - no need imho. I did my own digging. In about 10 days I've gone from not knowing the first thing about probability, to understanding why negative binomial is a better model than poisson point process! I've proven to myself the math in the SM Paper, and independently confirmed it with a simulation of the model in the SM paper. I've also modelled the alternative view (2 independent probability distributions) and you do in fact get different results (min 0.39 for alpha not 0.33 - and I'm certainly not saying that's right!). So I still have a massive question mark over the whole thing. The truth appears to be somewhere in the middle. Yes it's theoretically possible (for some value of alpha), no its probably not economically viable. Negative gamma is a thing, if poorly worded. Network topology matters incredibly, as does latency and processing time. All this nuance is missed in the "im right! no *im* right!" on twitter. Very sad.

Anyway I've gone from writing a succinct post to rambling, so sorry. I think my point is there are no kings, and we shouldn't blindly follow anyone, and we should remain open minded to re-evaluating our current understanding of truth at all times.

We definitely shouldn't automatically dismiss the substance of an idea/argument because of who is delivering it. Debunking something / Proving something takes time, but its not time wasted if you learn along the way.

Play nice, listen more than you speak, and think real hard.

Don't trust, verify

 

[Norway]

@sgbett
Great to see you posting, it's been a while since last time. In a way, it feels like the Ents going to war.

 

[sgbett]

Be warned - the oldest trees are not always the wisest!

There is no war, there is only one Bitcoin to rule them all (BCH)

 

[cypherdoc]

Forget bitcoin. Now is the time to buy bitcoin cash: Crypto trader

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/17/forget-bitcoin-now-is-the-time-to-buy-bitcoin-cash-crypto-trader.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[go1111111]

Negative gamma is a thing, if poorly worded.

Can you explain why this makes sense?

I explain here why Zanglebert's attempt to find a reasonable interpretation of Craig's words doesn't work: (see his response, then my response).

 

[Peter R]

@go1111111

All good points. While I don't think gamma can be "1," it can certainly be greater than 0. The selfish miner can "pre-propagate" his block to his Sybil nodes in all four corners of the world. This means the SM's block will be sitting ready-to-go one ultra-low-latency hop away from every miner while the HM's block is still localized in the specific corner of the network where it was mined. The SM thus has an advantage here.

That said, there is still a speed-of-light constraint for the SM's sybil nodes to get the "GO" command to release the block. However, now we're talking about the latency of sending a single BIT compared to the latency of sending thousands or millions of bits.

I would guess that achieving gamma ~ 0.5 is feasible with a careful attack.

 

[cypherdoc]

It's time, BCH's

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8d4y4x/bchbtc_cross_jumps_back_over_01/

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R

No miner is going to store a $105,000 block solution on a remote server outside his direct control. I still don't get why you're perseverating this SM argument when in practicality, it just doesn't work. I get you like the theory and math, but come on. Is all this turmoil worth it?

 

[NewLiberty]

Pretty much not 0.5 even if the SM has 1:1 Sybil node for each mining node in the network.

Here's why the sybil network is less of an advantage than it seems.
99% of miner finding a block is going to be on FIBRE.
This means the HM is 1 low latency hop away from most all the rest of the miners including the SM's listening nodes.
To win the race, SM has to
1) receive block - At 1:1 Sybil to Real Miner, this is the same time that all the connected miners and Sybils receive.
2) Process - the slowest step
3) Transmit.

The SM starts one hop behind in this race, and the average distance is closer to 1 than to 2, (about 1.4 and has been decreasing). So even in the most optimal case of total sybiling the SM loses the race more often than it wins even if the process time were ZERO

At a network distance of 1.4, >60% of miner nodes have the HM block at the same time as the Sybil network. The race is over for those 60% only 40% remain uncontested and it is about 50/50 for those as they are going to be 1 low latency hop from both. Even with total 100% sybil network, SM wins about 20% of the races if we round in SM's favor.

So 0.5 is not realistically feasible when the paper was written, MUCH less so in the world today, and has been getting harder as the network scales.

Section 6.2 of the SM paper recommends that instead of first seen, mining switches to a random order if they see two blocks. This recommendation improves the SM strategy rather than defend against it. Did the authors not realize this, or are all the recommendations the paper makes just thinly veiled attacks on the bitcoin protocol?

 

[cypherdoc]

Just to throw some color into this SM debate that I've been consciously avoiding out of boredom, when I cornered Emin (who seems to have garnered quite a bit of support from the BU devs) after that Hasher's United conference years ago, I forced him to admit:

1. That it required Sybil nodes that he conspicuously said nothing about during his bombastic FUD talk

2. That it, in his own words and with terror in his eyes, is "extremely risky" to bet what at the time was $10000 per hidden block to attempt this attack. Today it's $105000. In December it was $220000 or thereabouts. What miner, in their right minds, would do this?

There are some academics, who when directly challenged about their work, get highly defensive. Everyone should remember how he attacked the hell outta me.