Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

I am living in the most bizarre world at the moment. I can't believe this is a thing! WTF
@Peter R Greag has it in for you,

I think he hates that he does not have an inside angle with Ledger Journal. I guess triggered by the awarding of the Pitt Cyber Accelerator Grant by the Institute for Cyber Law, Policy, and Security. Congratulations.

I'm guessing he's looking for a sympathetic ear with CSW!
I still don't agree with your handling of the Selfish mining arguments but so be it, our collective immune system will be stronger for it in the end.

 

[throwaway]

I'm able to verify the signed statement of BU 1.5.0.1 with @theZerg's and @sickpig's signatures, but not the signature of Greg Griffith (is he @Griffith here?).

Is Greg Griffith using different line-endings or something like that?

 

[Griffith]

@throwaway no. im not using different line-endings. make sure u dont have any leading or trailing spaces. sickpig verified my sig before he posted it.

 

[sickpig]

@throwaway

$> bitcoin-cli verifymessage 1Pcpj8sR5adRNMi8rZ1Zi7rg6GPqcmFHAz  IOHOqQl227+NWM6lzHvLCFWH6r0iJObTbO9ZKzPolhwIQgZXJMm7X00JsFTpdiK1C0WrYaCJJuvbX1yYA1V62GE= "{ 'files': { 'BUcash-1.5.0.1-arm32.tar.gz': '94f1b8258d9d8252e977f113a0153b0b0d1f51874598eca47b844e08d04370f2',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-arm64.tar.gz': 'e91fcb26e7dc9e7fe7e00efad4a2e7800463d3a0a352c2a78891e99321aba86d',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-linux32.tar.gz': '500bc47142afaef18e64b328bb65273cc7143de87bd04d210b4177e12095d493',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-linux64.tar.gz': '48b2a814f8cd53451b416a36fe1c3083cdef0a42e9329c459b39cb7daeb4c025',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-osx64.tar.gz': 'dc39e50f3d267a9bb7ba5962109849f7f33807ba51ab6ea064510d27ddf9f5d0',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-win32-setup.exe': 'aae640d0714b6a5a0559c21d443747b6e8d2553e446266b452176d9d7d7e6b5c',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-win32.zip': '7e7b3c8beb7151ba694caa076ab8d31fb5391d5728b383f8c38897a7a6d7d7f3',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-win64-setup.exe': '355c0d381caa6740821ee66ca8022adb7ca51e3d5c4cd66a9e1c6872f3176fa5',
>  'BUcash-1.5.0.1-win64.zip': 'f89fbea941072751ba23dc77aa7d01fbbf19d705a1b8fae8743753efed83b383'},
>  'program': 'BitcoinUnlimitedCash',
>  'version': '1.5.0.1'}"
true

 

[throwaway]

Thank you, I found the difference; the statement signed by @Griffith is missing

             'BUcash-1.5.0.1-osx.dmg': 'cf6c6ab99c69fb03cf0ee140cb46a52d9b7a54b8fd9395a18f9d82d731db34eb',
             'BUcash-1.5.0.1-osx.tar.gz': 'b3fc368e21a224b3da669789bab35fa4bf20e2ffe4b0a2b76671417add9c977a',

compared to the statement signed by @theZerg and @sickpig.

Edit: just realised the whole statement had been changed (together with the signatures) since the last time I checked, my bad!

 

[go1111111]

I've been getting pinged more frequently lately "why can't we stop the fork Nov. 15?" It's been my preference to stop the November fork since it became so contentious -- and with BU miners can do just that. What else can we do (as BU)?

I think only a coalition of miners with support from Jihan could stop the fork at this point.

I haven't been paying that much attention to BCH lately, but it seems like a Nov 15th fork is a bad idea due to the lack of urgency and the amount of disagreement between sincere people.

Mengerian mentioned that we can't just not ever do controversial forks, because people can always stir up "controversy" (like Core did with the block size increase). It's true that controversial hard forks are sometimes good. But they do have a cost, so we need to ask whether the cost is worth forking so soon. I just don't see any reason why we need to do this now.

Regarding "what else can we do?", I'd join a movement among users to reject all Nov 15th forks by (a) not using any forks of BCH, except to split the coins and sell them with the aim of accumulating more (original) BCH, (b) waiting until miners realize that the forked version of BCH that they're mining on is not wanted by users, after which they'll return to the original BCH chain if they're rational. (c) as a last resort: change the PoW of BCH to remind miners that users/investors hold the long term power, and that they should listen to us if they don't want to lose money.

To be fair it does seem a little late to organize a massive social movement among BCH users, but this is the sort of thing I would have wanted to see.

 

[lunar]

A must watch.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I haven't been paying that much attention to BCH lately, but it seems like a Nov 15th fork is a bad idea due to the lack of urgency and the amount of disagreement between sincere people.

Mengerian mentioned that we can't just not ever do controversial forks, because people can always stir up "controversy" (like Core did with the block size increase). It's true that controversial hard forks are sometimes good. But they do have a cost, so we need to ask whether the cost is worth forking so soon. I just don't see any reason why we need to do this now.

Regarding "what else can we do?", I'd join a movement among users to reject all Nov 15th forks by (a) not using any forks of BCH, except to split the coins and sell them with the aim of accumulating more (original) BCH, (b) waiting until miners realize that the forked version of BCH that they're mining on is not wanted by users, after which they'll return to the original BCH chain if they're rational. (c) as a last resort: change the PoW of BCH to remind miners that users/investors hold the long term power, and that they should listen to us if they don't want to lose money.

To be fair it does seem a little late to organize a massive social movement among BCH users, but this is the sort of thing I would have wanted to see.

Totally agree. I'm sure if it was announced more offensively, this version would have become the only prevailing BCH. But it think it is too late, the hatred towards on single person and the habit of most people to talk about persons instead of ideas destroyed it.

Simply because this version will be compatible with Bitcoin SV as long as noone mines an incompatible block, while ABC will immediately softfork off. And staying compatible with CSW is a no go.

 

[Dusty]

@lunar

A must watch.

I'm unable to make sense of that Ryan is doing.
Actually for me, the best strategy is do exactly the opposite of what he is proposing: tainting your wallet with a non replayable transaction in order to be sure to work on just one chain. If the chain you're on loses, you still have your keys to gain access to the same coins on the other chain, so your coins are safe.

On the contrary, if you avoid the split every transaction you do can be replayed and you lose the possibility to sell the coins on the chain you don't like.

Also, he says that if you don't do as he propose (avoid splitting), then the miners will be able to steal your coins: to me this is nonsense, I can't understand how that would happen.

All the "poisoning" he talks in the video and the fact that you would "lose all your money" makes really no sense.

It seems like he doesn't want you to be able to manage coins on both chains so that you can sell the coins on the chain you want you to lose...

 

[Dusty]

A must watch.

Now watch this:

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Dusty

maybe this tweetstorm helps: Not that I really get it or believe it works. But the outcome is too nice to not think about it.

Edit:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrarB3ZX4AApBo2.jpg:large

 

[Norway]

Now watch this:

Millennial doesn't know what competition is and gets hurt when he can't have his "dividends" from a fork.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway and @Christoph Bergmann
I urge you to read the latest tweets by CSW and think hard if this guy isn't a threat to a free society and BCH.

 

[freetrader]

@Dusty

maybe this tweetstorm helps: Not that I really get it or believe it works. But the outcome is too nice to not think about it.

Edit:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrarB3ZX4AApBo2.jpg:large

I've never heard anyone from ABC or BU express the belief that they would be ok with eliminating *chained* transactions.

Many applications (like Memo) which need these transactions would be ruined.
Maybe he is confusing this with CPFP based on discussions about limiting the depth of those.

I believe Zietzke may mean well, but he is consistently full of BS.

*shakes head* (the day is getting loooong)

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Norway and @Christoph Bergmann
I urge you to read the latest tweets by CSW and think hard if this guy isn't a threat to a free society and BCH.

I can't because he blocked me long ago

What you just don't get is that I - and I believe Norway - don't care about CSW but about Bitcoin Cash. Wrong doesn't get right, no matter how much CSW you through on it.

Do you notice that Peter R. doesn't engage in the CSW slamming these days? He was one of the first to outcall him, and I was one of the first to support him and to call for BU distancing from nChain (while the ABC crowd happily cooperated with him). Maybe it's because we care more about Bitcoin Cash than CSW issues ...

edit @freetrader of course they are ok with, as they are not ok with splitting the chain. Come on, you really want to make it a sin to try to keep the chain together?

Edit Edit: Oh, @Mengerian is reading. I'm still waiting if you answer my question to support @satoshis_sockpuppet proposal for the next hard fork.

 

[Dusty]

Millennial doesn't know what competition is and gets hurt when he can't have his "dividends" from a fork.

It also seems like that millennials are able to call bullshit when veteran like Ryan start to spread lies and using scaremonger narratives a-la Core...
Tell me: why Ryan doesn't say that all the mined coins on BCH are "toxic? They are "toxic" exactly the same way as any unreplayable transaction using the new opcodes.

What will they do on SV, forfeiting to miners also all coinbase transactions of BCH?

 

[freetrader]

edit @freetrader of course they are ok with, as they are not ok with splitting the chain. Come on, you really want to make it a sin to try to keep the chain together?

Run that by me again in separate sentences so I can understand what it is you're trying to say:

- That ABC or BU devs are ok with eliminating chained transactions? I don't believe it, having never heard it.
- That who is not ok with splitting the chain? I think most prefer not to split the chain, but some can see a chain split when it's staring us in the face. There is still the option for Coingeek/BMG/SVpool to basically abandon the split by not mining their crappy client.
- A sin? sounds religious, personally I have no part of that. Can't and don't want to speak for others there.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

That ABC or BU devs are ok with eliminating chained transactions? I don't believe it, having never heard it.

ABC devs are ok with eliminating an united BCH. BU devs are not ok with it, but had not much other choice than to release a software that helps.

That who is not ok with splitting the chain? I think most prefer not to split the chain, but some can see a chain split when it's staring us in the face.

I am not ok with splitting the chain. Ryan is not ok with splitting the chain. You seem to be ok with it, as you accuse Ryan of a sin by not accepting the split.

There is still the option for Coingeek/BMG/SVpool to basically abandon the split by not mining their crappy client.

SV is compatible with Bitcoin Cash, as long as it doesn't activate certain features with hashrate majority. They can run their client and be ok. It's ABC which soft forks off with CTOR.

A sin? sounds religious, personally I have no part of that.

You accuse them of being ok with eliminating chains, in which way you mean it. Call it like you want. It's an ethical accusation.

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann

You seem to be ok with it, as you accuse Ryan of a sin by not accepting the split.

The only thing I would accuse a person of for not realizing that there is going to be a split is stupidity.

Stupidity is not a sin. (Axiom 1)

You accuse them of being ok with eliminating chains

I did? Where?

By 'eliminating chains', what do you mean exactly?

There are two senses I get here - a chain being eliminated as part of a hash war (I'm ok with competing for hashpower on the same chain, or competing on different chains in the market place.)

The other is by 51% or empty block attacks on other blockchains - and I mean those with rules you don't like.
(I'm not very ok with people attacking other people's blockchains, but enough of a realist to know it can be viewed as a competition and I can't stop anyone doing it)

I didn't see a single statement by Ryan denouncing Craig Wright's destructive tweets.
I saw a video by him holding Craig Wright up as Satoshi. That is his good right. See Axiom 1.

Spare me the "ethical accusations" on behalf of people who believe Craig is a good guy doing the right thing for Bitcoin.
To those people I say: "Happy hunting!" or whatever they say when they release the hounds.

I am sorry I cannot help some people see that releasing a client with incompatible consensus rules causes a chain split.

Yes, I support people's right to fork for any reason they want.
That's something I won't apologize for, despite your "ethical accusation".
It is one more 'exit' in 'voice or exit'.
Bitcoin itself is an exit from the current financial system. Never forget that. I'm not here to reproduce any kind of central banking system on top of Bitcoin.

eliminating an united BCH. BU devs are not ok with it, but had not much other choice than to release a software that helps.

So you think BU helps to split the chain. I don't see how exactly, perhaps you want to share with its developers.

I asked Ryan on #random in BU slack the following question:

Do you think all businesses should be allowed to express opinionated stances by invalidating tx's they don't prefer?

His answer was 'yes'.

If he thinks it through, he should be ok with businesses choosing to accept only ABC or only SV transactions.

 

[Norway]

@Norway and @Christoph Bergmann
I urge you to read the latest tweets by CSW and think hard if this guy isn't a threat to a free society and BCH.

I urge you to grow some skin and look at what's happening with the protocol. The strategy to send BCH(SV) coins to miners as fees if you split your coins is great. No more splits and shitcoins. It's a good thing.

I hope BU doesn't use a wallet that may taint outputs if hit by DSV dust... (EDIT: I mean the multisig wallet used for the organization funds.)
[doublepost=1541717364][/doublepost]

It also seems like that millennials are able to call bullshit when veteran like Ryan start to spread lies and using scaremonger narratives a-la Core...
Tell me: why Ryan doesn't say that all the mined coins on BCH are "toxic? They are "toxic" exactly the same way as any unreplayable transaction using the new opcodes.

What will they do on SV, forfeiting to miners also all coinbase transactions of BCH?

I dare you to mix some DSV into your wallets right after the fork. (Hint: You may lose everything if ABC gets worthless.)