Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_bc]

> there's all this recent talk of "fund recovery"

I don't like such talk. Recovering old coins is a land-grab. I don't think it would be good PR for miners looking to expand Bitcoin's appeal. Though, I could see all sorts of stupid ideas scoring limited success here and there - as various "us vs them" campaigns are launched. In the fullness of time, however, distribution will spread out. There should eventually be fewer "thems", and the "us"s will have fuller stomachs, with less reason to re-write the rules.

The world is messy. Bitcoin's getting messy too, but will always be the cleanest shirt.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg

why make a devil's advocate argument that makes no sense and is pointless? restoring back to 0.1 v, or whatever meme SV wants to call it, is no minor move. it's a re-establishment of a concept that was never allowed to play out, ie, an unlimited blocksize. i'd argue that none of the major changes to BTC have made any difference in it's economic success; p2sh, segwit, CLTV, CSV, RBF. in fact, the opposite. all b/c of core devs who refused to get out of the way and instead tried to impose their own profit/attention seeking agendas to BTC, and now BCH. and i include concepts like GROUP, DSV in that group (altho i am quite sure you personally never had a profit seeking agenda). Bitcoin's highest purpose and potential is to create a sound money aka a dumb token.

 

[go1111111]

Bitcoin maximalists are smelling blood?
[doublepost=1542127392][/doublepost]

What happens when there is no split or only BCH in february?

If there is no split we can cancel the bet and refund everything. If there is initially a split but only one chain has a market price in February, then if the chain is ABC I win and if it's SV I lose.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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?

Not sure you got my point, or maybe I am just missing yours. Rephrase?

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"?

Again, not sure what you mean here. If we find security footage that shows a culprit was taller than 200cm, that greatly increases the chances that a given >200cm guy is the culprit.

 

[awemany]

Not sure you got my point, or maybe I am just missing yours. Rephrase?

My point is that OP_CHECKDATASIG is in line with the other opcodes in terms of Bitcoin script and its purposes.

Again, not sure what you mean here. If we find security footage that shows a culprit was taller than 200cm, that greatly increases the chances that a given >200cm guy is the culprit.

EDIT: Fair enough on the poker angle but I think it is by far not as strong of a sign as you think it is.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I have to admit, I'm feeling about the most pessimistic about things as I ever have right now.

Will you feel more optimistic if SV can pull off 128MB blocks this week without a hitch? This should be well within the range of the "impossible" according to many statements from people skeptical of SV.
We won't have to wait long. And yes, I'll significantly downgrade my opinion of Craig's or at least SV devs' skills if this doesn't happen more or less as planned, especially if it doesn't happen anytime soon (barring some obvious extenuating circumstance).

What will those who doubt SV do? I'm not even going to press the matter that they already did 32MB without an issue, which seems to have been met with <crickets>.

 

[theZerg]

@theZerg

why make a devil's advocate argument that makes no sense and is pointless? restoring back to 0.1 v, or whatever meme SV wants to call it, is no minor move. it's a re-establishment of a concept that was never allowed to play out, ie, an unlimited blocksize. i'd argue that none of the major changes to BTC have made any difference in it's economic success; p2sh, segwit, CLTV, CSV, RBF. in fact, the opposite. all b/c of core devs who refused to get out of the way and instead tried to impose their own profit/attention seeking agendas to BTC, and now BCH. and i include concepts like GROUP, DSV in that group (altho i am quite sure you personally never had a profit seeking agenda). Bitcoin's highest purpose and potential is to create a sound money aka a dumb token.

He's talking about restoring it in all its dimensions (such as reverting P2SH) and then freezing there. Not just unlimited blocksize. This is the exact argument Core uses to justify SegWit. Its the underlying philosophy that matters, not the problem-of-the-day -- and ALL systems that interact with technology must periodically reinvent themselves or be replaced. As BCH clearly is showing with its tiny blocks, unlimited block size is no magic bullet -- there needs to be users to fill these blocks.

I do have a profit seeking motive -- because I am an investor I want to increase the utility of this money, so we actually get users. As an investor, I would agree with you that many of the features you mention haven't made a measurable difference in its economic success, and now you know why I've been driving for larger changes. But I do think that that's a little unfair. There IS a place for cleanup and that kind of stuff does help a coin succeed by making it easier to adopt (insert into your current workflow). But I think we agree that that should be secondary. But unfortunately these "cleanup" changes are dominating HF agendas. DSV is arguably the only non-cleanup that has yet to be deployed.

So you are wrong, GROUP and DSV are very different beasts than the rest. They are specifically made to open new use cases for our money. Whether you think that they would succeed or not does not rebut the fact that they were made to increase adoption whereas the rest of the changes are basically cleanup.

Unless you are 100% certain (i.e. a dictator in your own mind) that GROUP would not succeed, it would have been better to try it and have it not work out than to give up the market in advance. You'll figure this out when use of all these competing solutions continue to stagger along like they are now. Nobody seems to be moving into BCH to use wormhole -- its already on BTC anyway so why use BCH? And remember, "GROUP" is not "TOKEN" -- its a general facility whose possibilities move well beyond tokens...

BCH, the "dumb token" is never going to be a share in TSLA, by definition. They simply don't compete -- TSLA is a share in a company, BCH (like fiat) could be the grease of the entire economy. Now go take your maple leafs and try to buy some TSLA with it, without the inefficiency and overhead of exchanging to USD first. When another crypto dominates the representative token market, you'll have the same trouble buying TSLA with BCH as you have buying TSLA with physical gold today.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Freezing the technology anywhere

Well let's not conflate freezing the base protocol with freezing the technology. Even with the qualifier "anywhere." The idea is that the innovations happen by building things from the protocol's building blocks. Freezing IP didn't stop Internet innovation, even though that could have been called freezing the tech "somewhere."

Of course if there is a gigantic reason to change, say 30-50 years from now, the base layer can be upgraded (as it likely will have to be eventually anyway for security reasons), but the costs of unfreezing need to outweigh the massive benefits of having predictable solid ground on which businesses can build systems to last generations.

 

[Richy_T]

Will you feel more optimistic if SV can pull off 128MB blocks this week without a hitch? This should be well within the range of the "impossible" according to many statements from people skeptical of SV.

Not really. The problem is with the metacontext. We have demagogues leading the direction of things and I think that is not good.

The problem is not even bad actors. It's all the naive and trusting people who are falling over themselves to pledge fealty and give up their own power because it's easier than thinking for themselves. It showed itself with miners failing to push to increase the blocksize. It showed itself when Gavin self-imploded himself over CSW. And it's shown itself a dozen other times.

It's troubling for me. I viewed crypto as an experiment not just in distributed money but also in self-ownership. I think it's clear what the results are beginning to show and that's that we'll always have wolves because there's no shortage of sheep for them to feed on.

BU still remains a ray of hope somewhat. There's some real thinking going on around here. But Norway's question earlier in the thread and the reticent response to it give me a little concern.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think what @theZerg wrote is illuminating the interesting (partial) parallel in the CSW rhetoric compared to Blockstream's. That of "code is law". It seems to be wrt. "V0.1" of the code, but then also not really on the opcodes, nor the sighashing, nor any commits in the range V0.1.0 ... abc-master when SV forked.

The whole "back to 0.1.0!" and then it not really being exactly 0.1.0 gave me pause as well. However, after thinking about it, literally going back to a protocol identical to 0.1.0 wouldn't make much sense if there are changes that could make the protocol better in every way at being what the 0.1.0 protocol was trying to be.

For example, if there were a way to do OP_MUL that is just obviously more efficient and doesn't change the basic utility and scope of OP_MUL as a building block, it seems pointless to use the obsoleted version just for the sake of the cleaner optics of being able to say, "We kept our word, literally no changes at all." I don't have the field expertise to say whether all the changes SV has made conform to that standard, but it's something to consider. (This is SV's stated position, AIUI, when asked why the opcodes aren't identical to the old ones. But @shadders or @Otaci may want to clarify further.)

The superficial resemblance of "locking down the base protocol at 0.1.0" to Core/Blockstream's "lock down the blocksize at 1MB" is I think a pretty far bridge. Sticking in all essential spirit to 0.1.0 is a very serious constraint to place on oneself, as it obviously can't have included design choices favoring any business model cooked up after 2009, very much unlike the Core/BS set of changes.

I feel a double-standard with the fact that the CTOR -> Merklix -> Wormhole/Plasma theory and other aspects where Bitmain looks suspiciously like Blockstream, as well as the fact that Jihan's business model seems to be to make ASICs for hundreds of altcoins (whereas nChain and Coingeek are by all indications maximalists extraordinaire), hasn't been speculated about with even 1% of the attention we gave to Blockstream back in the day.

 

[macsga]

ICYMI: https://medium.com/@craig_10243/nsequence-and-p2p-exchange-9e4cbf32124c

So much has been lost in those wanting to change Bitcoin rather than in understanding it.

This design is secure. Those who say that a miner can collude, specifically “one party could collude with a miner to commit a non-final version of the transaction”, never understood Bitcoin nor the capability of script. Bitcoin is an economic system that uses technology.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The Tokenized team (winner of Coingeek's $5M prize) has released their whitepaper. I haven't read all of it yet, but it is clearly written and so far it seems very promising in terms of building massive utility for real business logic on a frozen base layer using just the original opcodes.

http://tokenized.cash

Whitepaper [PDF file]

 

[cypherdoc]

Well let's not conflate freezing the base protocol with freezing the technology.

precisely. the point is to solve the the big problem of blocksize limit once and for all; either by ideally removing it or perhaps using an adaptive algo. altho an algo is fraught with tricky math that could be susceptible to unexpected crippling consequences. once that's done, i personally am not opposed to adding in tech like CTOR and graphene if they're deemed needed. it's possible they might not be as no one around here thought 32MB blocks were possible yet we just had a whole series of them inserted w/o a hitch into the chain.

 

[Roy Badami]

This is nothing more than the obvious: as we move to new cryptographic security systems (many decades from now), you have a choice of letting the best hackers take the coins that no one ever moved after decades of advance warning of the change, or pushing them back to the miners as a security incentive. Which do you choose?

It's not at all clear that the best way to deal with the risk of coins being stolen is to proactively confiscate them. But that's by-the-by - as far as I can tell that's not what CSW is talking about. He seems to be arguing that burnt or lost coins are economically damaging in some way (which, I'm pretty sure is a position completely at odds with Satoshi's writings).

It's interesting though - this idea that burning coins is economically damaging is something I've never heard before the last couple of months. The timing is suspicious - it definitely seems to me that someone is trying to spread this idea in order to turn opinion against Wormhole - although for what reason I'm not sure.

Making it impossible to burn coins sounds pretty benign

The problem is that a common way to burn coins is to send them to an address for which there is no known private key - and therefore the only way to prevent it (short of blacklisting known burn addresses) would be to force people to prove they possess their private key at regular intervals - e.g. by requiring all coins to be moved at least one a year, and expiring any coins that aren't moved within the time limit.

And P2SH wasn't in the original protocol so this being a goal of Satoshi's Vision should be nothing new.

Does anyone seriously support removing the innovation on which the entire infrastructure of real-world multisig is built? Clearly (and surprising to me) the answer seems to be yes, but I say again that this would be incredibly damaging to adoption - and for what?

 

[cypherdoc]

That of "code is law".

where does he talk like that? if anything, the opposite:

"The childish notion of “code is law” does not apply to Bitcoin and cannot apply in any blockchain system."

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/vampire-securities-from-beyond-the-wormhole-8c4e691c809e

once the limit is removed and the concensus rules locked down, he advocates for all sorts of building:

"The way to create a system of money that operates in a permission less fashion is simple, lock the BCH protocol and build upon it. Bitcoin Cash will remove the various caps allowing people to build within script. They will build wallets and applications and oracles and all sorts of new systems and they will do this without having to ask the permission of Core developers, companies such as Bitmain or any implementation developer at all."
[doublepost=1542152475,1542151734][/doublepost]@Roy Badami

>It's not at all clear that the best way to deal with the risk of coins being stolen is to proactively confiscate them.

he's talking about recovering "lost" coins, not stolen ones. but i agree, that's a tricky prospect b/c when would they be considered "lost" and when do you let miners have at them after what lead notice time?

>He seems to be arguing that burnt or lost coins are economically damaging in some way (which, I'm pretty sure is a position completely at odds with Satoshi's writings).

you'll have to provide a quote on that one as i've never read Satoshi's views on burning coins.

>It's interesting though - this idea that burning coins is economically damaging is something I've never heard before the last couple of months. The timing is suspicious

i've talked about the potential economic consequences for years. i don't think the only conclusion is that "muh value will go up!". we only have 21M whole BTC units, which the last time i looked at the math equates to a few cents per satoshi depending on your source of USD supply. burning them under the illusion that they somehow "back" a sidecoin, token, or some other asset is illusionary, imo. CSW talks a bit about that here:

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/vampire-securities-from-beyond-the-wormhole-8c4e691c809e

and i briefly mentioned it Apr 2014:


i agree with the notion you can't stop it but that's not the same as allowing the protocol to facilitate it.

>Does anyone seriously support removing the innovation on which the entire infrastructure of real-world multisig is built? Clearly (and surprising to me) the answer seems to be yes, but I say again that this would be incredibly damaging to adoption - and for what?

doesn't p2sh multisig vs regular OPCHECKMULTISIG simply postpone the data hit from today's UTXO set into tomorrows blockchain?

 

[Norway]

 

[Norway]

I wonder how long it will take for that smartest people here to understand that IBS is a 90 degree parallelization along the time axis instead of over cores and fiber cables.

Looking forward to the first person saying:
"But but but keeping track of 1000 different miners' block candidates of 1 terabyte blocks each will take a lot of resources. We need to find a way to make pre-consensus!".

I'll be ready with an answer.

Some people are able to do the math, and they will be pleasantly surprised of how small and trivial resources are actually needed to keep track of this for ten minutes.

We have all been brainwashed to think that 1MB is a lot of data. Kids with phones are laughing at us. And network expert and new BU member, @jtoomim still claims that it will take 17.4 seconds to send 1MB of data across the great firewall of china for a motivated guy (a miner) that is dead focused on doing this as fast as possible because he wants to make money.

Disclaimer: IBS would work today and also after nov 15, with SV rules and even with ABC-rules (allthough CTOR undermines the bonus of giving statistical data of tx confirmations from a single node, typical 0.999 confirmations after 1 second). Unless we have missed a vital point. In that case, I urge you to help us killing this idea as soon as possible.

@Mengerian We considered calling the concept "Blockstreaming", but ended up with IBS

 

[Norway]

More about the bandwidth resources in IBS:
You get rid of the most of getdata(for blocks), Xthin, CB and Graphene. But when that is taken away, IBS has to add more (but distributed over the time axis).

Today, the situation is this:
You receive an INV message (for a transaction) for the first time. And then you send a getdata to the node that sent the INV-message because you want the transaction.

Meanwhile, other nodes send you INV messages for the same tx. And you keep track of these.

So when the initiating node finally returns the tx to you, you have a list of nodes that sent you the same INV message.

Now, it's your time to spread gossip. You send the same INV message to all your connected nodes, except the nodes you allready received the same INV message from.

With IBS, there is no exception. You have to send some more data. You have to send the INV message to all your connected nodes, not just the ones that had not sent you the same INV message.

The reward is the possibility to even build the merkle trees incrementally for all the other mining nodes' block candidates, or maybe it's more economic to build it for the 3 largest pools and just catch up if someone else finds a block. That's up to the miner and economics.

Thanks, @Peter Tschipper, for teaching me about INV messages when I thought I had invented a way to use your Xthin concept on normal tx propagation, and you explained that something called INV-messages was exactly that.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Open pull request for implementing "miner redirection" OP_CODEs for SV

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Scary how people in this thread start defending the absolute insanity of "recovering lost coins by miners" just because a certain cocaine addict expressed this idea.

It seems, the power of arrogance and hubris that Blockstreams people used works just as well on the other side.
[doublepost=1542178486][/doublepost]Fairly plausible imho: