Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

The answer is easy: Bitcoin Cash is quite simply meant as a money system, a system to do commerce with. And if you actively disrupt that with hash power you are being malicious.

That's the perverted, North Corean style explanation of Nakamoto Consensus.
A self-declared moral committee lectures us what's good and what's evil. PoW perverted.

Is that so hard to grasp for you?

Yes, and as this forum is showing you: There is no consensus on the question of who is actually disrupting Bitcoin, which was intended as a PoW system. As someone already said in this thread: Honesty is subjective, hashing power is objective, that's the whole point of PoW.

And, regardless of whether you think solving puzzles using hash power can be violating the NAP or not, I think it is very fair game in any scenario to do what I just described if your false god starts to fuck with the chain.

False god, true god. You start to sound like Luke.

And you must like that as you seem to believe CSW has majority hash and as you have cheered this messy hash war on.

Since when do I believe that CSW has majority hash? I just know that nChain/Coingeek had the majority of the Bitcoin Cash power. The majority of the overall hashing power seems still in the hands of those who are still mainly mining the censored shit project. Or, in your words: Your dishonest, false gods.

Maybe reality is creeping in for the CSW fanboys now.

As I already said before the fork: Those - who abandoned BU and went with Core and the digital currency group - 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: The asic sellers and the exchanges who profit fromt the opposite of Satoshi's vision of universal sound money: a hyperinflation of chains, coins and tokens.

Oh disgust, disgust, disgust ....

 

[molecular]

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.

I got some SV coins from Jochen Hönicke (thanks johoe) last night. He used OP_MUL to split them off. Anyone who wants some "SV poison", PM me an address and I will send some so you can use it to split your coins (by including that utxo into a tx with (some of) your other coins).

EDIT: electron-cash works like a charm, btw: you can switch chains in the network dialog and it'll resync

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Checkpoints or not.. To keep BCH usable the honest miners (not SV for a sane mind) need to have clearly more HP than the dishonest ones..
And if CSW/Ayre are ready to mine at a loss for a long time, other miners have to be ready to do that as well.

Or am I mistaken?
[doublepost=1542355164][/doublepost]

Honesty is subjective

rofl

 

[cypherdoc]

If SV has at least the amount of hash they presented themselves to have, they can simply reorg the ABC chain aggressively until ABC is forced to implement checkpoints every block, maybe by way of a centralized server that sends out the "update" every block. Checkpoints are a losing strategy against overwhelming hash power. Assuming CSW, Calvin, et al. deliver I believe that this is game over for ABC. The only question is how long it takes everyone to realize the emperor has no clothes.



100% agree. Security by centralized checkpoint presents the same pitfalls as liberty reserve, e-gold, etc. Game over.

again, a bit of historical perspective.

remember BitcoinExpress? well, i vividly remember following his repeated attacks on Solidcoin i believe implemented as 51% attacks. Solidcoin's lead dev defense? repeated checkpoints. obviously they didn't help in the end and the altcoin died a painful death. i see this move by ABC as underhanded and rooted deep in paranoid insecurity. Note: i haven't seen any underhanded tactics yet from SV despite all of CSW's bluster. otoh, we now have checkpoints being used as an ABC defense soon after SVPool getting ddos'd.

Satoshi only used the checkpoint that one time iirc. Gavin used it again, once i believe. Core actually removed it, out of purity reasons:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/75733/why-does-bitcoin-no-longer-have-checkpoints

they're used to change the PoW dynamics and it's sad to see.

 

[Zarathustra]

>> Honesty is subjective

> rofl

Another one who's abandoning the PoW concept and moves to the honesty camp of the truthers who know what's the truthest of all truths?

 

[awemany]

On a different note, have a look at this chart:

https://coin.dance/blocks/historical

Is who is behind Blockstream starting to silently drop Core so that they can try to move their sockpuppets to clamor for larger blocks?

It would be very fitting if SV doing reorg attacks is coincident with such a move on BTC.

 

[Zarathustra]

Note: i haven't seen any underhanded tactics yet from SV despite all of CSW's bluster. otoh, we now have checkpoints being used as an ABC defense soon after SVPool getting ddos'd.

Not possible. Honesty is not subjective. Jihan is honest, Calvin is not. Just ask the honesty experts.

 

[cypherdoc]

The answer is easy: Bitcoin Cash is quite simply meant as a money system, a system to do commerce with. And if you actively disrupt that with hash power you are being malicious.

Is that so hard to grasp for you?

And, regardless of whether you think solving puzzles using hash power can be violating the NAP or not, I think it is very fair game in any scenario to do what I just described if your false god starts to fuck with the chain.

And you must like that as you seem to believe CSW has majority hash and as you have cheered this messy hash war on. But the answer you just gave me indicates to me that you actually seriously doubt that.

Maybe reality is creeping in for the CSW fanboys now.

seems that the developers in this thread have separated themselves from the non-developers.

 

[molecular]

And if CSW/Ayre are ready to mine at a loss for a long time, other miners have to be ready to do that as well.

No, not necessarily. If market price is high enough, "normal profit-driven" mining can be enough to fend off attack.

EDIT: actually according to my napkin, the current market price is roughly the break-even point. if sha256 hashrate is about 58 PH/s and cash price is 0.07 BTC/BCH then that would allow for 58 * 0.07 = 4.06 PH/s to mine profitably and so be able to fend of an attacker mining empty blocks with 4 PH/s. Roughly correct?

EDIT2: is it Exa or Peta? fork.lol and coin.dance don't agree.

 

[awemany]

seems that the developers in this thread have separated themselves from the non-developers.

Can you explain your line of thought in more detail?

If SV starts reorg on BCH, it is fair game to do reorgs on BSV. Including mutual exclusion mining. Especially if you believe that hashpower should decide the fate of coins. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I fail to see what problem e.g. @Zarathustra has with this line of reasoning.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

No, not necessarily. If market price is high enough, "normal profit-driven" mining can be enough to fend off attack.

Yeah, that's clear. But given the market price, Bitcoin Cash is "overmined" atm.

btw, I really fail to follow the line of thought of the SV proponents now. Bitcoin ABC compatible miners have the vast majority of hashing power atm. What are you mourning about? This is PoW.

And if these miners decide to build on certain checkpoints .. Still PoW.

About honesty:
Bitcoin was always built on the assumption, that the majority of miners is honest. Honesty is not a concept that is decided by majority hashpower. (Do you see the circular argument you are using?)

And you have to twist language a lot, to argue, that disrupting a chain is honest (reorging with empty blocks, blocking transactions, creating chaos).

 

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

>Can you explain your line of thought in more detail?

if you line up the fanboys of each chain in this thread, and especially outside this thread, it pretty closely conforms to that distribution. and it makes sense, CSW's vision to lock down the SV protocol pretty much threatens every other dev out there that wants to code the BCH project.

>If SV starts reorg on BCH, it is fair game to do reorgs on BSV.

of course. i guess ABC better get to it.

>Including mutual exclusion mining.

what's that?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

threatens every other dev out there

Exactly that. CSW's vision is his chain, where he controls the development (including his patented crap).

Honestly cypherdoc I am astonished by your naivety in regards to CSW/SV. I see devs gotta dev as a huge problem (still) and after the CSW threat is (hopefully) eliminated we'll have to deal with ABC/Amaury and all the crappy developing around the protocol.

But ask yourself the question: Did CSW deliver a client that is able to handle the promised blocksizes? Do you want to go down with a bunch of incompetent drug addicts just because you are afraid of the devs gotta dev problem?

The enemy of my enemy does not have to be my friend, it can also be a way worse enemy.

 

[awemany]

@cypherdoc:

if you line up the fanboys of each chain in this thread, and especially outside this thread, it pretty closely conforms to that distribution. and it makes sense, CSW's vision to lock down the SV protocol pretty much threatens every other dev out there that wants to code the BCH project.

This is what just boggles my mind. CSW has announced BSV as government fiat basically so that assuming BSV is in any way conservative money needs a huge amount of mind-bending.

ABC might have changes I dislike, though they are not impacting Bitcoin's core monetary properties, nor have they announced so, nor have they moved into that direction.

CTOR isn't Segwit. It is Bitcoin's protocol rules as a living document but as far as I can see all the changes are compatible with BCH as a widespread payment system plus sound money.

Remember the "Code is law" idea from Core that we criticized so much wrt. the 1MB limit?

I understand where you are coming from and I have consistently argued for -and still am- a slower pace (though non-zero!) in development as well. What I do think makes sense, for example, is to simplify some of the arcane consensus rules, for example SigOps counting is messy IMO. And the txn minsize is just broken.

In my opinion, CDS and CTOR would have made sense within a time frame of years, not months.

But given the two choices, it is absolutely clear to me to support BCH, not BSV.

>Including mutual exclusion mining.

what's that?

A term I just made up for the idea I described above. You add consensus rules to the majority chain that make it mandatory to stop the minority chain. To make sure there's no chain split.

@satoshis_sockpuppet:

Bitcoin was always built on the assumption, that the majority of miners is honest. Honesty is not a concept that is decided by majority hashpower. (Do you see the circular argument you are using?)

Excellent remark. Emphasis mine.

 

[cypherdoc]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

>CSW's vision is his chain, where he controls the development (including his patented crap).

i don't see it that way at all. i'm not a CSW fanboy, as i've said. i don't care if he is or isn't Satoshi, or that he has patents, or that he's a lunatic disruptor. all i care about is the current SV changes; 128MB blocksizes and re-enabled opcodes along with his promise to remove the limit entirely sooner than later as being a major push forward to solving what is still the biggest problem in the space; the limit. all 32MB represents is a moving of the limit goalpost to make all you guys "ABC fanboys" . i believe Amaury will feed you piecemeal blocksize increases and probably NEVER remove the limit or introduce an adaptive algo b/c it would spell the end of his tinkering for the most part. yes yes yes, i understand that the network technically most likely can't handle 128MB blocks yet (altho i wouldn't be surprised that it can given none of you thought 32MB were possible including supposed network expert @jtoomim). that doesn't matter b/c the technical limit IS the blocksize limit and will enforce itself w/o significant damage to the network even if a larger block than that was pushed. and once that happens, whomever lead dev and team in charge at the time will quickly fix the bottleneck. i couldn't believe how fast ABC fixed Greg's tx throughput bottleneck bug during the last stress test. as i've said, "necessity is the Mother of invention". as for CSW, if he tries any unethical coins repos in the future, we just hard fork away. altho i seriously doubt he will. the decades away quantum algo threat is another question that still needs a solution.
[doublepost=1542359585][/doublepost]>Bitcoin was always built on the assumption, that the majority of miners is honest. Honesty is not a concept that is decided by majority hashpower. (Do you see the circular argument you are using?)

i've always defined that "honesty" as to holding true to the financial incentives of sound money. nothing more nothing less.
[doublepost=1542359879,1542359210][/doublepost]

CSW has announced BSV as government fiat basically

be specific

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@cypherdoc
I completely agree with you, that the BS limit is the issue that needs to be solved/removed.
And I also see the huge danger of ABC/Amaury keeping a hard limit as long as possible to push other changes they declare necessary for a bigger blocksize (like CTOR).*
But you have been blinded by CSW's 128 MB charade (their own client can't fucking deal with that.. come on!) and are not seeing the wood for the trees.

Dealing with the inflated ego of the ABC devs should be the next step after killing the CSW threat.

And as I argued often in this thread: No other changes to the protocol before there is some kind of dynamic blocksize (or limit removed) and miner voting system ready.

From years of reading your posts I believe we are not as divided as you might think.

*I still don't think that ABC is trying to cripple BCH as core tried with BTC but I think they have a massive ego problem and NIH syndrome which makes them think that they know the only possible answer of how to deal with big blocks and other stuff. (remember Amaury's "preconsensus-I have to manage that, not you little kids" article?)
[doublepost=1542360086][/doublepost]@cypherdoc
Would you see mining empty blocks or reordering the chain for the only reason of causing disruption to be in line with "holding true to the financial incentives of sound money"?
[doublepost=1542360271][/doublepost]and btw. guys:
Read the goddamn fucking whitepaper.

It is all about the race between honest miners and a dishonest attacker.

And for fucks sake:

The
system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

 

[awemany]

as for CSW, if he tries any unethical coins repos in the future, we just hard fork away.

With what hash power? Or a POW change instead? This sounds like willingly going down the path of splintering off until nothing is left. I can see who might want this outcome.

I think the trouble you and I see and might agree on is that the social media effect and the chain label and so forth is unbelievably sticky.

This is what allowed Core to be reluctant and this is what allows ABC to be pushy.

But the trouble is that it is going to be sticky for (e)nchain and CSW as well.

You will be in a community full of conman-believers even though you might not be one. Not at all a good idea to build the next money for the world IMO. And it looks like you will also lack the POW.

 

[cypherdoc]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

>their own client can't fucking deal with that.. come on!

did you read what i wrote? i know it can't (at least i don't think it can and you haven't provided any evidence that it can't).

but assuming it can't, it's about the lead implementation keeping the emphasis on removing the limit entirely asap. the entire Bitcoin project is running out of time for a permanent solution to this problem as rewards diminish. i really don't trust Amaury and i see a cadre of devs latching onto the project who, if Amaury won't, will object to permanently solving this problem in deference to their own pet agendas and projects. what an opportunity to replace Core and get rich.

and, like that guy /u/ratifythis wrote, the poison block is key to scaling Bitcoin; the constant threat of one in an unlimited scenario will be the Mother of invention. as well, the mining game theory dependent on sound money in the presence of one majority chain negates any miner incentives to produce one.
[doublepost=1542360977][/doublepost]@awemany

>With what hash power?


with the "honest" (those that understand the principles of sound money) hash power that would inevitably disagree with CSW; just like Bitmain and ViaBTC did with Core last Aug 2017.

by the time CSW could even begin making a case for coin repo decades down the line, a huge influx of competitive mining power would have joined SV diminishing him down to a small minority hash.
[doublepost=1542361519,1542360742][/doublepost]have you guys read CSW's case against Wormhole? i think he makes valid points. why the hell should we want to burn BCH for WMC coins? same Bcore shit all over again.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Yeah, that's clear. But given the market
About honesty:
Bitcoin was always built on the assumption, that the majority of miners is honest. Honesty is not a concept that is decided by majority hashpower. (Do you see the circular argument you are using?)

And you have to twist language a lot, to argue, that disrupting a chain is honest (reorging with empty blocks, blocking transactions, creating chaos).

Honesty doesn't mean anything.
The Fed's central committee is honest, isn't it?

 

[cypherdoc]

Would you see mining empty blocks or reordering the chain for the only reason of causing disruption to be in line with "holding true to the financial incentives of sound money"?

in the brave new world of PoW blockchains and as techniques applied to a competitive chain, yes. i welcome the hashwars. it's about time i'd say. it would be SV's attempt to re-establish a single chain and network effect, which is consistent with my desire as a Bitcoin Maximalist to see one of these chains destroyed as a final outcome to preserve the BCH network effect. and ABC is welcome to do the same to SV and it seems that some of us here in this thread are discussing just that. no problem. may the best chain win. i haven't made any bets either way. our rich history with BitcoinExpress and Artforz has established a precedent as i've tried to articulate.