Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[chriswilmer]

@Zangelbert Bingledack : The clearest thinker since David Hume?! That is the most absurd statement made on this forum, and I have heard many. Only the highest levels of solipsism could possibly allow for someone to believe that, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Craig is really, secretly, actually a clear thinker.

 

[witly]

Three posts from Jiang Zhuoer (BTC.TOP) about his view on the hash war:

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-1-why-we-need-hash-vote-e86ec209647a

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-ii-stability-theory-vs-evolution-theory-1f9015903d79

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-iii-the-war-of-the-hash-power-45fef8010467

 

[Norway]

BU maintenance release BUCash-1.5.0.2 is available for download.
Version 1.5.0.1 is still fine to use. Minimum memory of 4GB is recommended where blocks of 32MB or more are expected.
Thanks as always to @theZerg and team for keeping the production line humming!

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bu-release-for-bitcoin-cash-bch-bucash-1-5-0-2.23022/

@solex, do you think the web page bitcoincash.org should define the default settings of BU clients in the future? Or the membership? Or something else?

 

[chriswilmer]

Hopefully this forum won't fall the way bitcointalk.org did with censorship... but as a reminder to sane people here, there is an "ignore" button for users to deal with spam.

 

[_bc]

There is no possible way to avoid recovery of lost coins by miners. The only question is whether it happens in organized fashion that contributes to security or a disorganized fashion that doesn't.

Contributes to security? I must've missed that part. It sounds like fiat, and I don't see the benefit to security. By bribing miners? First they came for the "lost" coins, but I had none lost to worry about...

I like the recovery-by-work approach.

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zangelbert Bingledack : The clearest thinker since David Hume?! That is the most absurd statement made on this forum, and I have heard many. Only the highest levels of solipsism could possibly allow for someone to believe that, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Craig is really, secretly, actually a clear thinker.

"Cherry-Picking: The Subtlest Form of Dishonesty"

That's how you try to compete with ZB? With a 3-liner? Accusing him of having sold his account is at least as absurd. And a slander on top of it.

 

[awemany]

> "Cherry-Picking: The Subtlest Form of Dishonesty"

Yes, indeed.

It amazes me that you are still able to cherry pick essentially 'sane, conservative and sound money' from the ramblings and threats of you know whom. He's brought up what on other occasions would be labelled by you as a 51% attack and you hail him. That just boggles my mind.

 

[wrstuv31]

To see why the 51% attack isn't objectionable, you would have to do the thinking exercise proposed by zb but swap the two options for:

1) These types of attacks are part of the protocol design
2) These types of attacks are not

Then see how that fits with the result of the original exercise.

My result is that any rule change can be considered an attack on BCH, and any miner has a right to either attack (propose a new rule) or defend (attack the new rule).

 

[Zarathustra]

> It amazes me that you are still able to cherry pick essentially 'sane, conservative and sound money' from the ramblings and threats of you know whom.

Citation needed.

 

[Norway]

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:

It's possible that the companies nChain have invested in, have access to Satoshi's coins even today.

 

[sgbett]

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.

Just taking this middle part. I'll once again bring up the notion that none if this exists in a vacuum. There are legal implications of discussing things that could materially affect marketplaces.

A recent example: Saying "I can break segwit, I'll tell you how in 2019" , is different to saying "I can break segwit and this is how". The former you have some plausible deniability, you have responsibly disclosed, you have given the market plenty of time to react. Then you go ahead and deliver. The latter is likely violation of the SEC insider-trading rules.

CSW will be under enormous scrutiny, and if you can suspend your disbelief for a moment appears to be well versed in the law. I think he's being very careful about exactly what he says, when, and why.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

It's possible that the companies nChain have invested in, have access to Satoshi's coins even today.

lol Sure.
And I have access to Santa's coins...

I think he's being very careful about exactly what he says, when, and why.

He acts like he wants a price for most stereotypical cocaine abuser.

That's how you try to compete with ZB? With a 3-liner?

Soy Boy.
Capitalism.
Fuck off.

 

[Zarathustra]

> > Zarathustra said: ↑
> > That's how you try to compete with ZB? With a 3-liner?

> Soy Boy.
> Capitalism.
> Fuck off.

I guess you are referring to someone who wrote more papers than everybody else here.

 

[sgbett]

Hopefully this forum won't fall the way bitcointalk.org did with censorship... but as a reminder to sane people here, there is an "ignore" button for users to deal with spam.

"satoshi_sockpuppet likes this" ... oh the irony

 

[AdrianX]

I'll just leave this reminder here, This was how BU was going to win the 1MB war, however, miners stopped playing and the DCG won.

I think it is relevant in making sense of what may start unfolding tomorrow.

 

[freetrader]

What the hell are you people smoking all of the sudden.

It's a potent strain called 'blockchain skunk', manufactured by the Crypto Skunk Works.
[doublepost=1542246233][/doublepost]

It's possible that the companies nChain have invested in, have access to Satoshi's coins even today.

These are some of its effects.

But seriously, Norway does have a point.

nChain might indeed have access to *some* Satoshi keys. Satoshi is clearly nowhere around if that is the case.

But it's odd that they spun a narrative that the coins are under lock until 2020, something CSW tried hard to re-conjure in his Twitter rants and 2-year trade embargo email.

 

[Richy_T]

Thanks for your feedback
No, it's not broadcasting. Candidate blocks are only streamed to nodes that has subscribed. Every subscriber will receive the exact same stream. You could actually use TCP multicast to optimize it, but far as I are aware of, multicast routing haven't been implemented on the public Internet and it seems very unlikely it ever will. If a miner wants to distribute their candidate block streaming, they could use multicast or something similar internally.

I'm not aware of any TCP implementation of multicasting but you are correct that it is generally not implemented (it actually turns out to be a lot of work for routers to maintain all the state information it would require). I was looking into it as far back as '98.

 

[AdrianX]

Three posts from Jiang Zhuoer (BTC.TOP) about his view on the hash war:

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-1-why-we-need-hash-vote-e86ec209647a

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-ii-stability-theory-vs-evolution-theory-1f9015903d79

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/abc-vs-bsv-hash-war-part-iii-the-war-of-the-hash-power-45fef8010467

Ouch

7. After the war, if one of the parties concedes defeat, the war ends and the surviving chain will become BCH. If the failing party does not concede defeat (CSW engage in Guerilla war or ABC switches to POW+POS), BCH will split into BCH and BSV.

8. If CSW engages in “Guerilla war”, ABC developer team will need to issue patch fixes and will need cooperation from mining pools and exchanges to eliminate his influence.

[doublepost=1542256176][/doublepost]

But it's odd that they spun a narrative that the coins are under lock until 2020, something CSW tried hard to re-conjure in his Twitter rants and 2-year trade embargo email.

You may not have understood the language used. I understood: The coins are under the trust's control, the trust releases the coins on a set date, the members of the trust can amend the rules of the trust at will.

 

[majamalu]

Why didn't they amend the rules of the trust in August 2017?

 

[Zarathustra]

I'll just leave this reminder here, This was how BU was going to win the 1MB war, however, miners stopped playing and the DCG won.

Those are the ABC miners of today. And I guess they will 'win' again, and a majority of the Bitcoin Cash users will celebrate the phyrric victory that creates another unnessessary fork with another 21 million Bitcoins.