Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

To the people saying nChain is a net plus for BCH.. All I remember is
- Crazy patent claims left and right
- an evil impostor who leads his followers by using three word sentences with a lot of "Fuck you"'s in it
- a trillion claims about stuff that they will bring to the table that never happened

Honestly, how blind can you be at this point?

The term "net plus" is a result of counting pros and cons. Just repeating well-known cons doesn't add anything to it. IIRC, you supported CSW earlier. What changed your mind? Sorry, if I remember wrongly.

@freetrader

We mostly agree on our assessment of CSW / nChain / CoinGeek ... we just disagree about the dangers or his qualities (I, for example, think that his patents are junk in a sense that nobody will ever use what he patents, so it will have zero effect on anything), the social assessment of cost / rewards of this, and the great picture.

Without nChain, BCH would be a toy of Bitmain and ABC. It would not be of much interest.

 

[solex]

@Norway, It is unacceptable to impugn the integrity of the one person who did the most work to make the Satoshi's Vision conference at Tokyo happen. He made it a huge success. He has also done a lot of work in many other areas helping both BU and ABC advance our development and outreach goals for BCH.

Regarding that tweet, while not 100% accurate, is close enough to convey the difficulty of the situation in organising a multi-implementation developer working event in the current climate. That is, less than one month out from the BCH general upgrade with incompatible full node implementations. A situation which has already seen Gemini delay its BCH services. The coin is being damaged, so it is no wonder that the development relationships are not sweetness and light.

There was no opportunity missed in Italy to resolve differences between nChain, ABC, and anyone else, as the opportunity existed at Bangkok on 30 August when CSW was present, though he left after just 5% of that event passed.

We at BU have always sought a path of compromise for the good of BCH, and continue to do so.

@AdrianX
You have been given a good explanation as to why CTOR is very unlikely to have any technical benefit to ASICboost, and may in fact hamper it. Time for you to present some evidence for your claim, if you remain unsatisfed.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

@CBergmann

"Without nChain, BCH would be a toy of Bitmain and ABC. It would not be of much interest."

Does your observation suggest your view changed sometime between 8/1/17 and now?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@solex

do I get this right:
- you confirm that you (or another BU senior) disinvited SV devs on behalf of the same ABC devs which abused their BU member voting right to sabotage BU?
- you think it is not acceptable for a BU member to doubt the integrity of someone else who spent a lot of time to defend the vandalizing behaviour of these ABC devs?

@SPAZTEEQ

I'm not sure what you're on. My view is constantly changing about most things, and I was wrong on a lot of things about BCH. For example, I underestimated the role of network effects of BTC, the role of competing altcoins, I had to correct my expectations about adoption speed of BCH, and more. But I don't know what you mean precicely.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

IIRC, you supported CSW earlier. What changed your mind? Sorry, if I remember wrongly.

I was on the fence for a long time in regards to CSW, I'd say I have observed his input for much longer than needed to come to my conclusion about his character and his value to BCH (or any other project). I gave him the benefit of the doubt for I don't know how many times and he continued to be a failure in every aspect. Now I can't grasp the fact that people really support this person, his company and his scorched earth policy.

I really dislike the ABC dev team and I think deadalnix is an arrogant, immature, passive aggressive prick. From the top of my head I remember his /r/bitcoin post, his shameless code stealing and the latest BUIP bullshit. The way CTOR and other stuff was pushed by ABC was also repellent. As you can see, I don't like the "you are either an ABC or a CSW follower" bullshit.

But a) ABC devs deliver actual work and don't just talk about it, b) don't threaten people with patent claims and c) are still somewhat approachable for other teams as far as I can tell.

So there is reason to work with ABC and there is no reason to work with nChain imho.

btw, BU is the real deal!

In the end, I think BCH is still on a winning path forward. While I agree with cypherdoc and others, that "we" should find a final solution for the blocksize limit, we do not have a factual limit atm. We are way above demand and one thing I am sure all dev teams and miners on BCH agree with, is that we will never have a centrally planned tx quota again.
I also hope, that Antpool, viaBtc and others will just pull HP from the BTC chain to the BCH chain around the 15th to kill that retarded fork attempt by CSW and Calvin.

 

[AdrianX]

1) CTOR does improve ASICboost performance
2) CTOR does not improve ASICboost performance
3) You don't have enough evidence to know either way.

2

Unless there's something I'm missing. I can't see how CTOR could help ASIC Boost.

Thanks, for your response @Mengerian.

 

[solex]

@Christoph Bergmann
Short answer "no". Longer answer is that we are discussing a complex situation, and I am finding that language is constantly being used in a polarizing manner which means nothing can ever be settled.

The example just now is your use of the word " sabotage". Although I did not personally vote for BUIP101 I fully accept that it was proposed and defended with the best intentions. The intention was to do good for BCH. Many BU members agreed with its approach.
I completely reject the word "sabotage" in this context.
Same applies for the Italy event. All the people involved in organizing did everything with best of intentions for BCH.
As a BU member you are welcome to propose an event, request funding, and if approved by the membership, then you can chair it in the way you see fit. Obviously, we expect it to be for advancing BCH, as the guiding principle.

 

[AdrianX]

I am sure all dev teams and miners on BCH agree with, is that we will never have a centrally planned tx quota again.

BTW those who agree with this will be a very small minority. In the event, BCH scales enough to encroach on the transaction limit, the existing devs and miners won't be in the majority, those yet to join will have more influence and if you are paying attention they have conflicting ideas on most aspects of the Bitcoin (Cash) protocol.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

It was obviously sabotage, and both devs made their intentions absolutely clear in unambigous statements. Rejecting the word "sabotage" in this context is an insult to language.

BTW: I do not doubt that you, as well as the ABC developers, as well as the organizers of different events, act with nothing but the best intentions for Bitcoin Cash. If I didn't think so, it would make no sense to discuss. I'm sorry for using strong, polarizing words.

But I repeat: Rejecting the word "sabotage" in this context is a manipulation of language. Because it was.

 

[Zarathustra]

Crazy times. We (BU) are banning and punishing Shadders and Connolly for the behavior of CSW, because ABC devs (with intransparent, hidden sponsoring) requested it. It seems with Shadders and Connolly you can always have a normal conversation. Try this with Deadalnix.

 

[OpenMind]

How long have you been working for nChain, CoinGeek or Calvin Ayre?

 

[Norway]

I invented a way to avoid OP_CHECKDATASIG. One of my partners in Bitcoin.no, Thomas Bakketun, figured out the details. No need for OP_CHECKDATASIG.

https://www.yours.org/content/betting-using-bitcoin-cash-smart-contracts-f4367d93a6dd

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I was on the fence for a long time in regards to CSW, I'd say I have observed his input for much longer than needed to come to my conclusion about his character and his value to BCH (or any other project). I gave him the benefit of the doubt for I don't know how many times and he continued to be a failure in every aspect. Now I can't grasp the fact that people really support this person, his company and his scorched earth policy.

I really dislike the ABC dev team and I think deadalnix is an arrogant, immature, passive aggressive prick. From the top of my head I remember his /r/bitcoin post, his shameless code stealing and the latest BUIP bullshit. The way CTOR and other stuff was pushed by ABC was also repellent. As you can see, I don't like the "you are either an ABC or a CSW follower" bullshit.

But a) ABC devs deliver actual work and don't just talk about it, b) don't threaten people with patent claims and c) are still somewhat approachable for other teams as far as I can tell.

So there is reason to work with ABC and there is no reason to work with nChain imho.

btw, BU is the real deal!

I see it more complicated. That ABC is more competent makes them more dangerous, while CSW's patent threads are just a clownshow.

d) There is a high chance that ABC is backed by Bitmain. With the IPO Bitmain has to act rationally, while being heavily overinvested in BCH and facing a dangerous future with next halvenings. It's logical that what's good for Bitmain will not be automatically good for BCH.

Without going into conspiracy theories, I can see it as a rational choice at some point for Bitmain to refocus on BTC while reengineering BCH as their own, private-public blockchain for CNY stablecoins, securing the chain with both their stake and their hashes, for example. This is just an example of how incentives can diverge.

nChain is a chaotic, irrational actor, which I think is healthy for BCH. Rejecting to cooperate with them increases power of ABC, while decreasing options for BU. What should BU do? Build a third chain? It's a political game, divide and impere.

 

[sickpig]

@Christoph Bergmann

Rejecting to cooperate with them increases power of ABC, while decreasing options for BU. What should BU do?

we are cooperating with SV engineering team.

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/1425

Cooperation was the main aim behind BUIP 98.
[doublepost=1540451501][/doublepost]@Norway

I was reading the medium post of your colleague, mind explaining this part:

The outcome is a number from 0 to 999,999. Instead of creating a key for each possible outcome, the oracle creates a key for each possible outcome for each of the six digits (first digit is 0, first digit is 1, ... , second digits is 0, ...). This reduces the number of keys from one million to 60

 

[Norway]

@sickpig Sure! It's a simple way to compress the script.

Let's say the oracle is verifying a fact with one million possible outcomes. Instead of making one million hashes, the oracle does the following:

You make ten hashes for the first of the six digits. Each hash represent a number from 0 to 9.
Then you make ten hashes for the second digit, etc.

This way, you need 10 x 6 = 60 hashes to describe a million outcomes.

Bonus info: This method is considered more secure against quantum computing than OP_CHECKDATASIG.

EDIT:
Cool, Dagur made a version in Spedn:

 

[freetrader]

Looks like some peer review is happening on CSW's "Beyond Godel" (sic) paper:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/

It appears the law isn't his strong suit, I mean who wouldn't be forgiven for thinking that a CC-BY license means you need not reference the source.

Perhaps it's time to examine the "Bitcoin: A Total Turing Machine" for similar instances of plagiarism.

EDIT: people in the thread are claiming that CSW's text borrowed from a reference he gave (Kleene, "Introduction to Metamathematics")


Remains to be seen whether that is the case.

 

[lunar]

Lol freetrader i'd expected better of you.

Contrarian is clearly greg maxwell, if you haven't worked that out by now, time you did. He's been shitting on everything P2P cash for 8 years, why stop now? This is a poorly researched social hit piece. How can you not see that? Everything that can possibly be done, is being done, in an attempt to discredit CSW? (mmm I wonder why?) that post reeks of desperation. 80 upvotes in under an hour -

totally organic.

The source is clearly referenced. (and not the much later, Planet Math, greg is using it for equivocation purposes)
"Kleene, S., (1952) “Introduction to Metamathematics”. Walters-Noordhoff & North-Holland "
the majority on Pp 222 - 223 in case you can be bothered.

it's almost like none of these idiots have ever written an academic paper. Greg was homeschooled so that might explain it?

Ohh what happened last time?
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1178#post-62521

Contrarian just has reddit jumping like trained little monkeys, (right on cue Emin retweets) throwing shit and hoping it sticks.

More Bullshit Asymmetry, anything to keep people from working on P2P cash.

\rant.

 

[freetrader]

Dig yourself in deeper, @lunar .

Everytime CSW's fraudulent behavior is exposed again, people come with the argument that his critics are criticizing the person, not his contributions.

Now you bring the same argument about Contrarian. I don't care if Contrarian is Greg Maxwell - the issue at hand is the scientific misconduct apparent in this paper.

As @jtoomim and others point out in the Reddit thread, he plagiarized at least one passage from planetmath with isn't even in the Kleene book. Tell us where in the Kleene book the following passage appears:

Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion:

And nobody seems to refute the second instance of plagiarism cited by Contrarian. Which one of Craig's references is that from?

 

[Norway]

@lunar The anti nChain campaigning is very strong on r/btc now. My post on how to do oracle bets without OP_CHECKDATASIG was immediately downvoted to oblivion. It was the top "controversial" post on r/btc the whole day!

I guess the reason for the downvotes was because we showed that OP_CHECKDATASIG was not needed for a certain usecase.

I wouldn't be surprised if all usecases for OP_CHECKDATASIG can be solved with the current protocol with similar techniques.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9r3z5g/no_need_for_op_checkdatasig_betting_using_bitcoin/

 

[Norway]

@sickpig
Regarding the quick and dirty compression of the script, it can be done better with binary numbers. If the oracle creates two hashes for the first bit representing 0 and 1, two hashes for the second bit etc, you can describe over one million outcomes (1 048 576) with just 40 hashes. 33% reduction from decimal base