Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

Hmm ... whatever happens, we have already made a big win: We overcome consensus by developer authority, roundtables and exchange tickering. This is how you change (or not change) BTC or any shitcoin, but if you want to mess with BCH, you need to have a lot of hashpower.

That's a big step. ABC developers seem to have expected that it will go like everywhere: That everybody cheers them, lists their chain as BCH, and it's over. They seem to have even more problems than Core to believe that this doesn't happen. This whole episode showed that ABC developers do not share the mindset - be it about consensus and tickers, but also about scalability, cooperation, tweeting, empathy for non-technical issues - which I wished for BCH to become dominant.

But that's just my mind, not the hashpower. If it happens that ABC wins the hashpower, I'll be really ok with it. It will be more like a teardrop in a lake of joy. Happy Hashwar everybody!

BTW: One very ugly scenario that is hardly discussed: ABC changing PoW to old XMR-algo - Bitmain has a lot of unused miners for it - and Bitmain directing all its hashpower to attack SV. This would make ABC definitely the most stable variant of BCH.

 

[solex]

@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?

bitcoincash.org exists to be implementation neutral and provide general information to the Bitcoin Cash community. Ideally it should be an in-depth developer reference site like bitcoin.org. It could be better by having a libconsensus library which dev teams make use of to build competing implementations. There are loads of ideas but as always, requires time, effort and money for qualified people to get it up to its full potential. Anyone can raise a PR, though it is mostly ABC who are active with it.

BU recommended settings, and minimum hardware requirements should be on our own website.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

bitcoincash.org exists to be implementation neutral and provide general information to the Bitcoin Cash community. Ideally it should be an in-depth developer reference site like bitcoin.org.

The site has proofen that it is not. Look at what they say about today, and compare it to what SV has announced. The website is nothing but a proxy of ABC. Guess because it is managed by @Mengerian ...

Edit: Here's what bitcoincash-org says about today:

November 15th, 2018
Planned Network Upgrade
The Bitcoin Cash network will undergo a protocol upgrade. Businesses and individuals who use the Bitcoin Cash network should check to ensure that their software is compatible with the upgrade.

Compatible Implementations:
Bitcoin ABC 0.18.3 Bitcoin Unlimited Cash Edition 1.5.0.1 Bitcoin XT Release K bcoin - bcash 1.1.0
Additional Information:
November Hardfork Spec Spec for OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY Testnet Information

Here's what BitcoinSV.io says:

The upcoming Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard fork on November 15 will likely cause two branches of the blockchain to exist, at least temporarily. Some actors believe both branches will persist, effectively creating two “coins.” Other observers believe that one chain will die off with the alternate “coin” simply becoming unusable, and leaving a single “coin” once everything is resolved. Regardless of the final outcome, any coins that exist prior to the hard fork will exist on both branches whilst they remain viable.

 

[solex]

@Christoph Bergmann
Indeed. The problem with bitcoin.org is pretending away realities which it doesn't like. We see the same thing again in bitcoincash unofrtunately. I do suspect that no PR was raised to bitcoincash.org repo to provide text like the SV explanation above.
I did describe an ideal state. Now the community is at the opposite, in a polarized state. We will see in a few hours whether that polarization is permanent or not.

 

[Zarathustra]

My assessment on CSW, sure to surprise everyone, is that his weaknesses in thinking are very few, almost the fewest of anyone I have studied (David Hume may be less).

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann
Indeed. The problem with bitcoin.org is pretending away realities which it doesn't like. We see the same thing again in bitcoincash unofrtunately. I do suspect that no PR was raised to bitcoincash.org repo to provide text like the SV explanation above.
I did describe an ideal state. Now the community is at the opposite, in a polarized state. We will see in a few hours whether that polarization is permanent or not.

Yes, I know. I just wanted to add my assessment of the real state

When we compare it to bitcoin.org, it's equally bad, if not worse.

 

[lunar]

Happy Upgrade Day everyone.



Livestream commentary for the discerning cryptonerd, with 7+ hours of speakers

@Norway making a guest appearance.

UTC​

David Jerry Nakamoto Consensus will be tested 15:00 - 16:00
Alex Fauvel & Stein Ludvigsen 2020 and halving 16:00 - 17:00
Eli Afram & Daniel Krawisz Status of the Fork 17:00 - 18:00
Daniel Krawisz & Alex Agut Bitcoin as open source 18:00 - 19:00
Brendan Lee & Hayden Otto ABC vs SV 19:00 - 21:00
Ari Kuqi, Brendan & Hayden Big Blocks 21:00 - 22:00
BCH Boys and CSW Status of the Fork 22:00

 

[cypherdoc]

as a reminder, Goldman owns Poloniex. you can be sure their traders will be out in force manipulating.

 

[cypherdoc]

one good thing about 1m block intervals is that watching the wall paint dry would be way more exciting...
[doublepost=1542303575][/doublepost]as well, i had no idea i'd be getting a week's worth of my friend @Norway condensed down into about an hour...
[doublepost=1542303776][/doublepost]1 more block to go

 

[cypherdoc]

it's fork time
[doublepost=1542304634][/doublepost]wow, BCH mempool getting spammed:

https://blockdozer.com/
[doublepost=1542305048,1542304442][/doublepost]ok, bitcoin.com extends ABC block one ahead

 

[solex]

BCH abc/sv volume on Poloniex is 3x everything else added together.

 

[cypherdoc]

why is the BCHABC difficulty dropping? should be the opposite.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks

 

[solex]

Well, the hashrate which was mining 75% of the blocks has moved away. Also depends what happened 144 blocks ago...

 

[chriswilmer]

It's a relief to see ABC ahead. Hope it keeps up.

 

[lunar]

"It's a relief to see ABC ahead. Hope it keeps up."

I think we'll see the Oliver Twist of Orphans before the night is up.

Where is the missing hash?

 

[Norway]

Relief sounds a bit premature...
[doublepost=1542314727,1542313627][/doublepost]CSW should be live here in 1h 15 minutes.
https://hashwar.live/

 

[chriswilmer]

So quiet here. I would have thought more people would be posting on this suspenseful day!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Yeah, seems this was way too boring for all the build up.

The thing is, with the loony SV miners and CSW's threats there is now a realistic potential for chain reorgs.. miners need to mine BCH with a loss to keep it alive..

I'm a bit disappointed that not more HP switched from BTC to BCH.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Does anyone know how one might acquire coins tainted with post-fork block rewards? Theoretically they would become available within 8-10 hours from now, after the 100 block threshold is crossed. Asking for a friend.

 

[Richy_T]

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.

I'm happy for spammers to be banned and their posts deleted but as far as I'm aware, there has only been one spammer in this thread recently and it's not anyone actually contributing to the conversation.