Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Jonathan Vaage]

I actually think the stronger Schelling point would be with leaving the vulnerable coins to treasure hunters.

 

[witly]

"majority" is objective, "hostile" is not, that is the point of POW.

Core didn't 51% attack Bitcoin Cash - yet.

Deadalnix is not wrong. He is simply talking about the option of last resort of users against a hostile miner majority.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Satoshi reaches down through the years to comment on specialized opcodes like OP_CDSV.

Woah. I know this quote, but I never exactly noticed this part. Either Craig is really strong in making Satoshi quotes his inner believe, or ... If he was Satoshi, this would explain his strong disagreement with new op-codes.

 

[freetrader]

"majority" is objective, "hostile" is not, that is the point of POW.

If there's no hostilities then there is no need for a "51% defense" as CSW supporters are claiming.

I'll leave you with this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9wdkm2/lets_get_this_straight_intentional_reorgs_and/

 

[theZerg]

The problem with that Satoshi quote is that it doesn't really apply. Or more accurately it supports CDS. Satoshi is talking about making a general purpose scripting language. CDS + an opcode to push the tx onto the stack can replace the monolithic CHECKSIG with 2 more fundamental opcodes. Having these two opcodes would make the scripting language more generally applicable without special cases -- exactly why Satoshi built script.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Which single company? Coingeek, nChain, Mempool, OK Miner, or one of the miners on SV pool?

Well, it is not far-fetched to think two business partners, Wright and Ayre, will control the majority of the hashrate, not with their pools, but with their own machines running through their pools.

 

[sgbett]

... if he knows ...

... He might be able to ~10x his amount of coins based on current futures markets ...

Think like a billionaire.

1. I think it could be considered "insider trading", why take the risk?
2. How do you 10x ~1m coins.... on Poloniex?

 

[79b79aa8]

I have an honest question to SV supporters: what is the point to have a blockchain if a single company validate transactions?

what i want is for it to be shown who supports BCH the way that matters: with their hash. under the present situation, we have support of BCH by neglecting to attack it.
[doublepost=1542072257][/doublepost]

The problem with that Satoshi quote is that it doesn't really apply.

the legal vulnerability remains

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Satoshi is talking about making a general purpose scripting language.

Satoshi is talking about making a general-purpose language for predicates determining how money moves. You're talking about something broader where money isn't really the central function.
[doublepost=1542073863,1542073260][/doublepost]

If there's no hostilities then there is no need for a "51% defense" as CSW supporters are claiming.

@witly said "hostility" is subjective. He didn't say there's no hostility. If someone points a loaded gun at me, I consider them hostile even if they promise not to shoot. Even they actually are quite friendly and would prefer to point the gun away from me. The nature of a split is that there is an irremovable threat of being nuked, for both chains.
[doublepost=1542074442][/doublepost]Short and easy CSW=Satoshi tidbit for today:

How many people are so into poker that they'd include stubs for a poker game in Bitcoin 0.1? Check the code and his gaming background. That's at least a 10x coincidence.

 

[cypherdoc]

Really? Given the stated SV vision includes removing the ability to send to P2SH addresses, somehow sending lost coins to miners, and somehow making it impossible to burn coins, I somehow doubt that.

I have no problems with the changes that SV are proposing for this month. One reason I cannot support SV is because I most definitely do not support their vision

you're probably right. i don't think ABC is truly serious about scaling. their devs will never fully get out of the way, as it is too lucrative and alluring to be at the center of attention and get paid to do so. they will never remove the limit but instead bump it from time to time to keep the masses assuaged. as far as p2sh, i've never liked it and don't use them since they were never part of the original protocol. i'm sure you truly do like them, as it gives alot of flexibility for devs to do complicated things. that's the problem though and where we disagree. as far as sending lost coins to whomever, i never liked this idea either. but i can sympathize with the argument of repurposing/recovering altho this can be complicated. and burning coins? i've always thought that was stupid too for facilitating competing coins.
[doublepost=1542079118][/doublepost]

Well, it is not far-fetched to think two business partners, Wright and Ayre, will control the majority of the hashrate, not with their pools, but with their own machines running through their pools.

by definition then, SV will have won the hashwar. and being the only big block alternative out there presumably pursuing the original Bitcoin, market price should rally behind it. if that happens, competing miners will surely flood in.
[doublepost=1542079350][/doublepost]

Attacking BCH currently takes only around a million USD per day. This is in the reach of a rich person involved in an ego battle. For a government this is trivially cheap. The fact that BCH is vulnerable to this is a big weakness in its security model (and in the model of all PoW coins).

Proof of stake is actually a lot better at defending against such attacks, for two reasons:

(1) Cost of attack is much higher. If BCH ran PoS and 10% of users staked coins, an attacker would have to spend 300 million USD (assuming the price didn't rise as they bought, which it would) to buy up enough coins to stall the system until a fork. Compare that to the 1 million USD per day attack cost under PoW.

(2) It's much easier to punish the attacker in PoS. You can fork and slash only the attacker's stake, which means the 300 million USD the attacker spent to briefly attack the chain all flows to the other holders. After a fork, the attacker needs to spend another 300 million USD to mount another brief attack. Each time this expenditure is basically given to other holders. On a PoS coin I would actually look forward to a state trying to attack it because it would mean I'm making significant money during each attack. In PoW the attacker's cost doesn't flow to holders.

>Attacking BCH currently takes only around a million USD per day. This is in the reach of a rich person involved in an ego battle.

that's easy for you to say. in reality, no one has or probably ever will spend that kind of money in an attempt to destroy BCH. what SV is doing is in their minds saving BCH.

i've despised POS since it's inception:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

 

[majamalu]

I've been thinking about the strategies that miners may find consistent with their economic incentives.

1- Endure whatever economic losses are necessary to kill the rival chain, in the hope that the market will dance with you on the grave of your rival. This strategy can be highly profitable in the short term (and also in the long term) if successful.

2- Mine the most profitable chain in the short term, but be ready to point your miners to your favorite chain once the market confirms its value. In other words: transfer the losses to those who in your opinion are bad investors. This strategy can be highly profitable in the long term if successful.

Both involve high risk:

1 can exhaust you before you reach your goal, or you can end up "winning" Pyrrhus style.

2 can also fail, if it turns out that you are the bad investor.

If all this drama is not an elaborate plot between Bitmain and nChain to kill BTC (in which case I take my hat off), it remains to be seen which of those two strategies works best.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Daniel Krawisz and a friend interview CSW. Dense and good, lays it all out. Must watch for those who want to understand the next few days and beyond.


Also, he says BTC will not exist at the end of 2019 as he's found a new vulnerability, irremovable, in Segwit that allows you to steal everything (including all non-Segwit coins), without using any hashpower. This is entirely unsubstantiated, but as I said, he usually doesn't bluff. Enjoy!

 

[Richy_T]

he's found a new vulnerability, irremovable, in Segwit that allows you to steal everything (including all non-Segwit coins), without using any hashpower.

If this doesn't pan out, will you reconsider your position?

I mean, it doesn't really matter to me if you do. I just see a lot of brushing over and denial of evidence that CSW is a straight-up BSA. Or maybe this is just another trap for the uneducated?

 

[go1111111]

>Attacking BCH currently takes only around a million USD per day. This is in the reach of a rich person involved in an ego battle.

that's easy for you to say. in reality, no one has or probably ever will spend that kind of money in an attempt to destroy BCH. what SV is doing is in their minds saving BCH.

Ayre may think that he's saving BCH, but it's still pretty bad that BCH can be brought down by a single delusional rich person who spends only a million USD per day.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

There will be no split. This week will end boring.

https://news.8btc.com/jiang-zhuoer-btc-top-will-support-the-camp-favored-by-a-majority-of-hash-power-in-the-bitcoin-cash-hash-war

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

If this doesn't pan out, will you reconsider your position?

I'll of course reconsider my position on how often he bluffs or lies, yes. If his attack is revealed and turns out to be wrong, I will reduce my overall assessment of his faculties by a significant amount.

One excess of his is that he often speaks far too loosely. He does the thing Greg Maxwell (and some leaders on all sides) also do where he will state "X" in a way where X is indeed one conceivable way a fact could be described but is nowhere near the phrasing one would reach for first when trying to describe X, plus there are a bunch of unstated caveats that change the scope of applicability, etc.

Like he'll say (fictional example!!), "Something huge is coming next month. You'll never have to trust an exchange again." But it turns out to just be a paper he wrote that he won't even share yet, that won't do anything for the exchange ecosystem for at least a year, and only applies if you use exchanges in a certain narrow way. And maybe it's also patented but he says it'll be free to use for BCH (unless you start to disagree with him on what defines BCH exactly). Eventually the benefit becomes clear, and it is describable as "huge" in some manner for some people, but is not nearly the size and/or scope you expected. Or maybe it is but the implication won't be clear for even longer.

Mostly this ends up being a matter of having to wait a lot longer rather than him not coming through, but it can be pretty annoying if you try to rely on his statements too concretely. Or you get something different than what you had in mind, but it turns out to be as good or better when you realize the broader significance. Now that he is doing many of the things he said he would do that people thought he wouldn't, this has gotten a little less annoying.

 

[awemany]

Satoshi is talking about making a general-purpose language for predicates determining how money moves. You're talking about something broader where money isn't really the central function.

Eh? Script stays simply a predicate whether the money can be moved or not. A script runs with boolean outcome, DSV available or not. Care to enlighten me about the intrinsically monetary properties of OP_SHA256?

How many people are so into poker that they'd include stubs for a poker game in Bitcoin 0.1? Check the code and his gaming background. That's at least a 10x coincidence.

What is so surprising with taking public information and selling it as something new or as a coincidence, when it is trivial to produce said "coincidence"?


@Richy_T :

I mean, it doesn't really matter to me if you do. I just see a lot of brushing over and denial of evidence that CSW is a straight-up BSA. Or maybe this is just another trap for the uneducated?

What is a BSA in this context?

 

[Zarathustra]

He did not. In fact, he called BCH dead on arrival when we implemented replay protection. He later changed his mind, sure, but we'd have listened to him at the time, we'd not have BCH.

Seems that it's true what you said here. If we {the miners}'d have listened to CSW at the time, we'd not have BCH. CSW confirms:


Thanks to those miners who didn't 51% defend Bitcoin against Core, we got a hyperinflation of chains, coins and tokens, the opposite of universal sound money.

 

[freetrader]

Thanks to those miners who didn't 51% defend Bitcoin against Core, we got a hyperinflation of chains, coins and tokens, the opposite of universal sound money.

I don't hold those chains, coins and token and most of them are worth a pittance compared to the top coins (most of which long preceded the BCH split).

Most of the tokens are on Ethereum etc.

Where was his - or Ayre's - mining power or any other contribution beforehand to defend?

More bollocks from the nutty professor.

 

[Zarathustra]

> I don't hold those chains, coins and token and most of them are worth a pittance compared to the top coins (most of which long preceded the BCH split).

Yes, long preceded the BCH split. Because - as I wrote - "Thanks to those miners who didn't 51% defend Bitcoin against Core". Those miners still mine mainly the North Corean chain. And their cheerleaders always babble about honesty.

> Where was his - or Ayre's - mining power or any other contribution beforehand to defend?

Not enough to defend it alone. That's why he said he tried to collaborate with Jihan and Roger to defeat the North Coreans.