Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[SPAZTEEQ]

Just today nChain's Chief Scientist threatened BU with a patent he allegedly holds.

I had something typed out sort of asking what motive could there possibly be for this post, but then I just drew my own conclusion. In summary, perhaps there is valid hope for BCH as it is being swarmed from all sides, but only if miners are capable to think long term. I have no idea if this really is the case though.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Adding CTOR, I have no problem with doing this.
The way it is implemented in ABC is as a soft fork sneaking in to a hard fork.

Yeah, the "regular upgrades" mixes different soft and hard forks like crazy. Imho this is good path to let something go terribly wrong. At least we directly slippery sloped from "a block size hard fork should be done" to "every kind of hard and soft fork shall be done". It's like somebody wants to proof that Core was right all the time with their "no hard fork" mantra.

That is what I call a good hard fork:
https://getmonero.org/2018/10/11/monero-0.13.0-released.html

Good hard fork: Make something which is demanded by the market better and scale a rare supply of it, by using a technology which was developed by known cryptographers, peer-reviewed and month long tested by independent auditors, and terribly wanted by every single member of the community.

Bad hard fork: Optimize rooms in empty hotels so that you'll be able to compete with IOTA on technical promises about having the most over-capacity for something nobody wants, by implementing a technology that is neither well tested nor has a quantifiable benefit, but is rather controversial.

Edit:

This is what a good community does when there is no consensus for a hard fork that it is not immediately essential for the system:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-devs-reach-consensus-to-delay-constantinople-hard-fork-until-january-2019

 

[freetrader]

I had something typed out sort of asking what motive could there possibly be for this post, but then I just drew my own conclusion. In summary, perhaps there is valid hope for BCH as it is being swarmed from all sides, but only if miners are capable to think long term. I have no idea if this really is the case though.

Regardless of the direction you might interpret this, I think I can summarize my post as

• nChain wants to play hardball
• BU (and others they threaten) should totally play hardball with them from now on

There's a lot on the line for the reputation of Bitcoin Cash, and I feel they've done enough damage.

 

[imaginary_username]

This is what a good community does when there is no consensus for a hard fork that it is not immediately essential for the system:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-devs-reach-consensus-to-delay-constantinople-hard-fork-until-january-2019

Uh, that hardfork failed to activate on testnet and had a major bug in one of the two major node clients... if you ask me, it's kind of big deal regardless of whether there "is consensus" however you define it.
[doublepost=1540216477,1540215327][/doublepost]

@imaginary_username I'm concerned you think you are part of the "we" who is in control of enforcing the 32MB limit.

You and I and literally everyone else who holds, buys, sells, transacts in, run businesses on and mines, develops on and etc. are part of that "we". I'll be concerned if anyone does not consider himself or herself part of it.

 

[AdrianX]

Realize the truth, there is no limit, the protocol does not grant the ability to limit transactions to anyone.

There is only the reality, a protocol, and the incentive to generate new coins others will value, propagate and build on blocks that extend that incentive.

 

[Mengerian]

@Mengerian

>The problem is that letting nChain take control of the protocol makes it less likely this will happen.

isn't that the same attitude Adam Back gave in his infamous "coup" argument? as in, you in fact believe ABC has control to protect?

I don't think it's the same attitude. I never implied ABC (or anyone else) should be "in control". I think it's good to have multiple implementations and groups with influence over the protocol, with the market ultimately in charge.

It seems to me, though, that nChain is trying to take sole control, by undermining efforts at collaboration, issuing threats, etc.

As freetrader said above "nChain wants to play hardball".

 

[lunar]

The problem is that letting nChain take control of the protocol makes it less likely this will happen.

This is a rather telling response,

So who currently controls it?

"The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."

To believe Bitcoin works, we have to build off this conditional. Not just now, but for the decades that follow. Here's the elephant in the room....

There will be a many periods in that future where a group of miners collectively control enough hashpower to have their way with the network. We have to assume any power group is honest (rationally profit seeking) ergo, if Coingeek and co control enough hash to make decisions they are honest by definition. Or Bitcoin is broken.

So while i see many developers making noises about what changes to make, and why their favourite proposal is not getting added. Unless you've spent hundreds of millions $ getting enough hashpower to make that decision, your opinion, is just that.

My explanation for the bickering over the last 6 months is Bitmain have lost the pole position as decision makers and many of their plans are having to be reconsidered. We simply have new management now, and there's some bitterness from those connected with Bitmain led projects. I for one am glad of this shift in power, as Bitmain stood idly by for years while software they were running was used to handicap the network, and who was at the helm when Bitcoin was split? (arguably Bitcoins biggest failure of management)

Of the two development paths, Bitmain appears to be trying to bolt extra things onto the engine, while CoinGeek and SV are fine tuning the fuel. imho Path two is the route to global sound money.

BU has the unique position of remaining neutral and should be willingly collaborating with both.

 

[freetrader]

We have to assume any power group is honest (rationally profit seeking) ergo, if Coingeek and co control enough hash to make decisions they are honest by definition.

No. We definitely should not ever assume that just because someone has majority hash, they are honest. We need to MONITOR their actions.

Now, I've not seen anyone really misbehave as majority miners yet. And I even saw a brief period where CoinGeek + BMG had > 50% on BCH.

I would count censoring transactions or doing re-organizations to defraud others as such misbehavior which would be undeniable evidence of misconduct and dishonesty in a miner.

Or Bitcoin is broken.

When real dishonest behavior by a majority miner is detected, that is the point where the community brings the problem to the attention of the remaining honest miners and decides what shall be done about it. Nuclear options are put on the table.

I would say if that process does not bring about a resolution which returns the chain to good service for all of its users (including the remaining honest miners) - then Bitcoin is broken.

---

But what if, hypothetically, you arrive at a 30-40% miner who is willing to burn large amounts of fiat money just to cause persistent problems for the users of the network. What do you do then?

Just because there is an honest mining majority does not mean a significant minority cannot cause great harm to the functioning of the currency.

 

[AdrianX]

I never implied ABC (or anyone else) should be "in control".

ABC insisting their changes, on their terms and their skedule is the true Bitcoin Cash, is employing the same strategies employed by Bitcoin Core used to justify their control over consensus rules.

If ABC wants to abstain from controlling the protocol, they can start by not pushing consensus rule changes that don't have the agreement at this time.

I have a question regarding CTOR and ASICboost in relation to Bitcoin BCH.

ASICboost, known as covert ASICboost when deployed today as it can't be detected. ASICboost chips are less effective in some ways as they require a predetermined transaction order thus to date have remained largely unused and undeveloped as they limit the number of transactions that can be added to a block.

Do you @Mengerian, @deadalnix, @micropresident, @solex know with certainty that chips designed with ASICboost will have the same limitations once the CROR consensus rule change is applied to BCH?

That said it would be a conflict of interest if ABC developers were being paid by an anonymous entity to push CTOR to advantage their future chip designs to benifit from ASICboost and CTOR at the expense of chip manufacturers that we're optimising for the current consensus rules.

a) Are you confident that ASIC chip in fabrication today or not yet in production, designed for the current protocol without CTOR, will not be impacted by the addition of the CTOR consensus rule change?

b) Are you unsure if there are ASIC chip in fabrication today or not yet in production, designed to take advantage of CTOR once deployed. You are unsure if there will be an efficiency advantage for ASICboost chips when CTOR is enabled?

 

[solex]

@AdrianX
I can assure you that I have heard nothing about any connection between CTOR and ASICboost. Leaving that aside, isn't the cat out of the bag and the miners are generally moving from covert to overt ASICboost anyway?
There is a basic principle where mining should be as efficient as technically possible, for a level playing field. I read that Slush has done a 180 on overt ASICboost and supports it now. There is no moral imperative that a miner should disadvantage their mining operation.
[doublepost=1540279071][/doublepost]@Norway
You mention co-operation with nChain. The only co-operation at present is the work to ensure that their 15 November change-set is correctly supported in the next BU release.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

ABC insisting their changes, on their terms and their skedule is the true Bitcoin Cash, is employing the same strategies employed by Bitcoin Core used to justify their control over consensus rules.

If ABC wants to abstain from controlling the protocol, they can start by not pushing consensus rule changes that don't have the agreement at this time.

That's how it seems for me, too. In fact, I don't see much other reasons for what's going on. If it was not about control, CTOR would either delayed or activated via BIP135. That's why the November fork will be a significant devaluation of Bitcoin Cash for some of the few who (still) care to care.

 

[freetrader]

ASICboost, known as covert ASICboost when deployed today as it can't be detected.

People are pretty good at detecting stuff.
Covert AsicBoost can also be detected.

https://pdaian.com/blog/a-candidate-heuristic-for-covert-asicboost-detection-on-chain/

I could swear I had seen a report / paper which presented an analysis of the historical blockchain w.r.t. AsicBoost, but I can't find it anymore. I wonder if it was the draft report mentioned in that link.

Even if the heuristic is not foolproof, the data is in the blockchain forever, and more heuristics can be combined to settle the question.

ASICboost chips are less effective in some ways as they require a predetermined transaction order thus to date have remained largely unused and undeveloped as they limit the number of transactions that can be added to a block.

No, they don't limit the number of transactions that can be added to a block.

And this "require a predetermined transaction order" rings false to me as well.
The question should be whether CTOR makes covert ASICboost easier, harder or doesn't change the difficulty much at all.

I lean towards "doesn't impact it" since CTOR eliminates the degrees of freedom in shuffling transactions around (grinding on the transaction order).
One would need to add or remove transactions from the block to grind covertly, which would also be detectable in the long run.

 

[bitsko]

How exciting BCH will test governance on the chain itself. It seems half of you think its nonsensical or impossible, but like all things in the space, must be done empirically lest it get debated for an eternity.

Noone had the foresight to claim a split could add value to both sides(or if they did noone listened), yet it was empirically the case with some splits, when it happened it was refreshing to clear the air with reality.

and again, if noone chooses to create and maintain a useable split (a technical split without merit like clashic notwithstanding), it will be very refreshing when reality has its say upon these theories.

Further, i reckon attempt to secure votes beforehand such as miner signalling seems vulnerable to manipulation...

In other news:

 

[Norway]

Did I miss it, or are there still no response from BU to Shadder's claim that their invitations to the zero-conf workshop were revoked?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway

If so, what is the problem? Nchain does not want to talk to ABC, their chief scientist is a raging idiot who is threatening to sue people left and right. They should not be invited to any conference or workshop, they are BCH's blockstream.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Anybody can refuse to talk with anyone. But anybody with half a brain was able to know what cooperating with CSW / nChain meant since the beginning of BCH.

Despite the shitshows and faketoshi-bullshitting, CSW and CA provide more net value for BCH every day by mining, evangelizing and investing than the whole November hardfork will ever provide.

If you can't wait to fork them off, you get something seriously wrong.

@Norway

I don't think. Maybe they didn't get the memo, maybe it's true. I think it's the good right of them to exclude SV devs, even if it's sad that BU helps ABC to get through with that attitude.

Anyway, after having survived Scaling Bitcoin 2016 in Milano, we now know that Marx was right:

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

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

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann : if in November miners/pools supporting SV start to attack exchanges with re-orgs and doublespends (like CSW has announced) and degrade the performance of the chain for all users, will you still support "cooperating" with them?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@freetrader : Maybe you remember, I was one of the first who wanted BU to break with nChain during the may fork, when ABC allowed nChain to get faketoshis "original protocol" opcodes in the protocol (without even indicating a single usecase beside pushing CSW's Satoshi-Story), while cooperating in shuting down op_group with fakereasons ... now political camps changed, and ABC does no longer like Craig, and instead wants to cooperate with BU against SV. Because they have been so dumb to believe in CSW, but did suddenly see the light?

I don't say BU should cooperate with nChain. I say BU - and people in general - shouldn't make their mind about persons, but about facts:
- CSW turned out to be very good in giving vision, laying out general concepts and evangelizing BCH (while being a desaster in technical details, twitter and social things) and getting a vivid (but naive) community behind him;
- nChain turned out to hire a few developers which appear to be reasonable and by a multitude more polite than leading ABC devs;
- nChain also turned out to be the only source of investments directed exclusively on BCH startups
- CoinGeek turned out to be a sometimes good pro-BCH magazine
- CoinGeek turned also out to become the biggest only-BCH mining-pool and saving BCH from being a complete joke hashratewise after our chinese mining-friends turned back to usual business
- BitcoinSV turned out to be much less intrusive, disruptive, compatible with BU members vote and in line with the founding agreement of Bitcoin Cash than BitcoinABC.

This are the facts you should decide with whom BU should cooperate, not some r/bitcoin-like tactics of demonize a person to reject everything he suppoprts, because he's evil and so on. And taken all this into accout, it is ridiculous to wish nChain fork off. They add a lot of net value.

Now, what when nChain does what they can do with their hashrate - attack the system? I don't think they will, because most of what CSW shouted is pure fraud and vandalism. If they do I for sure will not promote cooperating with them. But I will also reject cooperating with any team that run into this announced situation for stupid childish power games.

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader ASICboost is a perfect example of permissionless innovation. There is only one ASICboost innovation, (It is arbitrarily defined as Covert and Overt)

I'm agnostic, but when acting in my self-interest I support its use.

Hardware manufacturers capable of ASICboost will advertise their advantage, Pools who use it will advertise to attract more customers who can profit from its adoption. There is no need to fuss over covert use. What is important is the Bitcoin protocol had to be modified to make it effective.

BitcoinCore have modified the BTC protocol to allow ASICboost to operate effectively, enabling a notable benefit, Core calls this variant Overt ASICboost. Multiple pools now support it.

I, as a miner, will want to mine on pools that allows my hardware a competitive advantage, pools that want more profit will advertise to get my business. If ASICboost offers an inconsequential benefit it will be ignored. We see industry advertising its use on BTC, not BCH.

I suspect it is not being used on BCH as it offers an inconsequential benefit for BCH miners. If it was effective we'd see more empty blocks and BCH pools advertising its use.

The ASICboost IP was added to a BTC patent pool as leverage, it was done to incentivize those who wanted to use it, encouraging them to add their IP to the patent pool encouraging cooperation.

Yesterday Bitmain announced they will be enabling ASICboost. Having secured a Licence before the ASICboost IP was added to the BTC patent pool they can take advantage of the IP without contributing any of their IP to the patent pool.

Changing the Bitcoin BCH protocol to give ASICboost miners an advantage they don't currently have is all good and well if the other miners who will be disadvantaged agree.

If the other miner's object and the developers in control of the protocol rules enable new rules that favour one set of miner over another they are in breach of trust. It is particularly bad if those developers are covertly on the payroll of the miner who is encouraging them to change the rules in their favour.

Future confidence in Bitcoin BCH depends on the integrity of miners. May criticisms dismissed for lack of evidence are bigining to ring true, Bitcoin BCH will struggle to succeed when it can be manipulated for profit by a centralised authority.

It seems CTOR from what I've been told is a consensus rule that will enable effective ASICboost on BCH. It will benefit some miners at the expense of others.

Given the circumstances, the appropriate way to enable CTOR is to set a date long enough in the future to give the group of miners time to produce chips that will make the mining algorithm universally accessible.
[doublepost=1540316071][/doublepost]

If so, what is the problem? Nchain does not want to talk to ABC, their chief scientist is a raging idiot who is threatening to sue people left and right. They should not be invited to any conference or workshop, they are BCH's blockstream.

@satoshis_sockpuppet it's one thing to not invite CSW. I wouldn't want an ego that big bumping into things.

BSV is an implementation mining block on the Bitcoin BCH Blockchain. It's quite another to uninvite/ exclude developers of that implementation. It is counterproductive and unnecessarily petty.

 

[bitsko]

mining empty blocks is not an attack.

mining from a certain height and overtaking the prior tip is not an attack.

the concept of 'attack' in relation to known rules is in the mind of the political animal saying it.