Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

 

[Norway]

 

[freetrader]

Plagiarist totally rekt.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/
Looks like this is going to become a regular thing.

Props to Kain_niaK for this zinger blast from the past:
http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/it_regulatory_standards_compliance_handbook.html

But who among us hasn't plagiarized a couple of reference books and research papers, eh?
Let them cast the first stones...
[doublepost=1540862218,1540861154][/doublepost]As someone else mentioned, there were 6 blocks in a row on $BCH for CoinGeek today, starting from block 554310. The last 4, starting from 554312 , were mined within about 6.5 minutes. That's pretty impressive!

Double check my math, but at nominal ~25% hashpower (according to Coin Dance) the likelihood of 6-in-a-row for CoinGeek's pool is ~ 0.024%.

Could it be someone borrowed a few percent from some CG-friendly BTC miners to send a message? That could lower the odds that this was random chance significantly. Then again, sometimes it is just random chance...

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
What do you think happens after november 15?

 

[freetrader]

@Norway
Unless miners call off both forks, I think significantly more hashpower than today will mine on two main chains (one following "SV rules" and the other following "ABC rules", to put it that simply, disregarding any other copycat forks).
Some exchanges may list both, in ticker ways that might seem confusing depending on allegiances.
I think one of the chains will reach a relative value similar to that held by BTG compared to BCH, but another possible outcome is some sort of rough equilibrium.
If one emerges decidedly victorious it will most likely retain the name Bitcoin Cash. If there is no clear winner I don't know how the naming / tickers would be resolved.
I expect the hashpower fights to go on for a while, possibly intermittently.
I hope it won't be a matter of several weeks. A kind of extended guerilla warfare would persuade me that malice is intended by the attacking party or parties, whichever it may be.

 

[wrstuv31]

If significant hash switches over then the hash war will be a huge win for BCH, in the ongoing BTCvBCH battle. BTC difficulty is sky high right now, while the BCH price is super low. It's inspired thinking to realize that a 'hash battle' is due.

 

[lunar]

Plagiarist totally rekt.

Clearly this is going nowhere, so i'm happy to let time be the judge. Those reddit examples look far more like applied mathematics than plagiarism to me.

So for the present, I think I'd trust the combined research capability of the EU/UK/US patent authorities (who would also be acutely aware of any plagiarism accusations) than some PoSM whipped up frenzy, from the destroyer of Wikipedia and Bitcoin.

You don't get awarded these, if you've plagiarised your work, the notion is absurd. They must have cost millions.

https://patents.google.com/?assignee=nchain&num=200
[doublepost=1540918089,1540917326][/doublepost]On the outcome of the November fork, i'm in full agreement with @connolly_dan, above ^, as to what I'd like to see. This is a PoW system though, and if Bitmain/ABC and friends get their ruleset added via majority hash then that's the chain i'll happily support.(isn't that the point of a PoW blockchain?) If we see two permanently divergent chains, that last more than a week or two, both fighting for the one true Bitcoin moniker, i'm going to have to do some serious thinking about the future of this space and the concept of blockchain powered global money. imho the concept of Nakamoto Consensus will have failed.
(ain't gunna happen - fingers crossed )

-------

Seeing as none of us normies have enough hash to make our opinions matter, hows about we have some fun?

I'll bet one for one (pre 2018/11/15) Bitcoin (BCH) that the SV ruleset will be the majority hash (SHA256) Bitcoin Cash chain, after 48hrs of the (nov15) hardfork. (from the 1st incompatible block). The bet is lost if ABC ruleset gets adopted, OR if there are divergent chains, after 2016 blocks on the leading chain, where the ABC ruleset still has more than 10% hashpower. (based on previous 2016 block average of the BCH chain, at time of split)

All bets to be made before (2018/11/10)
GCBU thread regulars only pls, Max 5 opposing bets.
Bet considered void and funds returned, if either ABC or SV capitulate and announce they are calling off the fork prior to 2018/11/10

I'll happily except either @solex @Norway @cyperdoc to act as arbiter and escrow, if any of them would be willing to do so, or find a suitable alternative if not?

@satoshis_sockpuppet @Peter R @freetrader @jtoomim @Richy_T @Mengerian or any other GCBU regulars who would like to do join in and take an opposing bet, come have a good faith, gentlemens wager.
[doublepost=1540918371][/doublepost]whoops @cypherdoc

sorry didn't want to edit the post above.

 

[Bagatell]

@lunar

"If we see two permanently divergent chains, that last more than a week or two, both fighting for the one true Bitcoin moniker, i'm going to have to do some serious thinking about the future of this space and the concept of blockchain powered global money. imho the concept of Nakamoto Consensus will have failed."

Agreed. And if SV wins CSW will be even more insufferable than ever. So I'll take your bet and hope the gods of crypto aren't doubly vengeful!

 

[Norway]

That's the spirit, @lunar!

@freetrader described possible scenarios and didn't really answer my question about what he thinks will happen. So @freetrader said between the lines that he has no clue where we end, but he has an idea about what the possible different outcomes are. I guess I'm in the same place as him (or her).

Bets show commitment to a prediction, and I'll be happy to act as escrow if anybody wants me to. I have doxxed myself by being sloppy/inspired/drunk so many times with details, so it's easy to find me if I try to take the money. 2 of 3 sigs is probably the best way to go.

As me and my buddy in Bitcoin.no have proven, I could have acted as a trusted oracle with no knowledge of you guys' bet without OP_CHECKDATASIG (sorry, but it's true @theZerg ).

 

[lunar]

@Bagatell

Fantastic. I like a bit of sport, keeps life interesting.

@Norway will you be willing to hold the funds in escrow? I'd think those that care to participate would prefer address privacy? So this should be done in private if you all agree?

Any other takers?

 

[Norway]

@lunar
Sure! As I said, I think it's best (for you two) if we have a 2 of 3 sig. Copay?

I can just hold the money for you and pay you back after the dust has settled if you are too lazy to learn and use Copay. We have all been drinking beer together, and it's not a lot of money today (but it will be a fucking insane amount of money 5 years from now).

How do you think we should do it, @Bagatell ?
[doublepost=1540938032][/doublepost]As a spiritual guru, I would advice @Peter R to get into the bet, but on the same side as @lunar. This would put his soul a win-win position.

 

[Bagatell]

@Norway

I'm embarrassed to admit I've never made a 2 of 3 transaction. Is it appropriate to talk about it in public

 

[Paul G.]

You don't get awarded these, if you've plagiarised your work, the notion is absurd.

Do patent examiners actually check for this kind of thing? I have never heard of that. Likely they check other patents, not all published texts.

 

[Norway]

Hell, I'll chip in with 1 BCH myself, taking the same side as Lunar if anybody wants to do a counter bet. Not because I know what will happen, but because I want to double my happiness if the conservative and protocol freeze side wins. Making it a 2 X win or 2 X lose bet for me. (My spiritual guru adviced against this and said I should seek balance in my life.)

Funny bets aside, I see the problems with an evolving protocol on my current project Ka-ching (inspired by @Peter R 's awesome SigSafe).

We are working on the Java Card platform, and every expert tells us that this doesn't work. Many have tried and failed at this. Among others, the french company Ledger tried and failed. But their failed code have given us much. We stand on the shoulders of giants. We have basically cracked it. Canonical transaction signatures that was introduced by ABC simultanously as the difficulty adjustment algorithm gave us problems (high vs low S value), but we solved them with work and dirty hacks.

And when I finally started to verify myself, I discovered that OP_CHECKDATASIG is not necessary for the oracle services that @theZerg envisioned at all.

ABC, who "accepted" @theZerg 's proposal had to change it, because it was Not Invented Here. But they accepted it after redesign with their fingerprint on it and maybe some other tradeoffs, not sure what they would be. Hopefully related to canonical tx ordering and not a limit to the max blocksize.

ABC give 2 reasons for OP_CHECKDATASIG in their roadmap. One is @theZerg 's initial reason, oracle bets. My company has proven that this can be done without OP_CHECKDATASIG.

The other reason is cross chain atomic swaps. This is very interesting, because cross chain atomic swaps can be done with hash locks and time locks. We can do it today. OP_CHECKDATASIG is not needed at all.

Unless the other chain demands it. I have not checked, but I think ETH can do both hashlocks and time locks. I don't know if Monero/Zcash can do it. Or if Wormhole depends on OP_CHECKDATASIG to do atomic swaps against BCH.

To be honest, I think OP_CHECKDATASIG was a bad but well intended idea from @theZerg, and it became a political trade item.

I think the devs on most clients underestimate people's ability to build creative solutions around a rock solid protocol and create new problems when they try to change it. (0-conf is not a problem for ATM operators!)

This is why I think nChain has the best approach.
[doublepost=1540942230][/doublepost]

@Norway

I'm embarrassed to admit I've never made a 2 of 3 transaction. Is it appropriate to talk about it in public

LOL, I never did it myself! But I think the Copay mobile app makes it simple

 

[Norway]

I want to apologize to @Mengerian for being paranoid and rude. You are a good man.

 

[79b79aa8]

@Paul G. the argument is that the patented work must be original (or no patent would have been awarded). so not all the work can be plagiarized.

even if the issue of plagiarism were moot, though, in my estimation at least the 'beyond gödel' pre-print is obviously not up to academic standards.

and even if, overlooking the illegibility of the argument as it now stands, one gives countenance to its conclusion -- roughly, that any computation that can be carried at all out may also in principle be the output of a bitcoin script (assuming suitable extensions to the language) -- it is not clear that this result has much economic relevance.

 

[Mengerian]

I want to apologize to @Mengerian for being paranoid and rude. You are a good man.

Thanks @Norway for saying that. Apology accepted!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Clearly this is going nowhere, so i'm happy to let time be the judge. Those reddit examples look far more like applied mathematics than plagiarism to me.

It is pretty sad to see, how much bullshit can be produced and people like you still give CSW the benefit of the doubt. I know, that you are not a troll nor have bad intentions, much like @Norway so it is painful to see you guys closing your eyes trying not to see the obvious.

I don't care if the guy picking out CSW's plagiarism is Greg Maxwell, the CIA or Putin.. CSW has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and he is stealing other people's work. Take a step back and try to analyze the stuff he says without emotions. It is so obvious. (And mind, one could have known that from the beginning when he published his weird "evidence" for being Satoshi (yea yeah, I know it wasn't meant as being "evidence"). At this time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and that I just didn't understand where he was going. Now I know he is just a lowlife scammer).

@satoshis_sockpuppet @Peter R @freetrader @jtoomim @Richy_T @Mengerian or any other GCBU regulars who would like to do join in and take an opposing bet, come have a good faith, gentlemens wager.

I do not bet.

You don't get awarded these, if you've plagiarised your work, the notion is absurd. They must have cost millions.

Well, I am sure you know how many bullshit (and also prior art) patents are awarded these days, especially for CS work.

So, people are concerned about Coingeeks HP, (which seems to be pretty big and maybe much bigger than what they show "officialy"). But if I am not mistaken, even if coingeek had 100% of the current BCH HP, wouldn't that still just be about 1/3rd of Antpools HP?

Buying HP to cast your vote.. I do not see a problem with that. Time for the honest pools to step up and mine for a loss for a while if they want to defend BCH against a 51 % attack

 

[bitsko]

I read a brilliant idea in the complain about csw telegram channel.

If a party has ~33% hash, they can just selfish mine to win

 

[lunar]

it is not clear that this result has much economic relevance.

The economic relevance is astonishing 'if the paper holds up to peer review and real world proof'. So, not only can Bitcoin be one world sound money, It can also evolve into a one world computer and form of AI. (More like an AI with a multitude of embedded and competing AIs)

Consider that for a moment; In decades to come with every transaction on chain, IoT connected devices from the entire planet, measuring down to the satoshi (or less with payment channels) will be giving live feedback and dynamically altering human/machine output, based on requirement.

Food surplus, trade deficits, all human waste, can be measured and systematically reduced until we become an resource efficient species. Imagine (smart) transactions programming themselves, based on live feedback and sound economics. The entire network is emergent and biological in nature, like a single giant node or brain.

This is why the base protocol must be kept as dumb yet Turing complete in its simplest form. Anything new adds risk of economic exploits.

June 17, 2010"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. [...] The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we’ll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later"

June 18, 2010: (I’ve been working on bitcoin’s design) since 2007. At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn’t resist to keep thinking about it. Much more of the work was designing than coding. Fortunately, so far all the issues raised have been things I previously considered and planned for."