Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Weak logic man. That's like "If you use the roads, you're not allowed to be libertarian".
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Luke-jr attacked an altcoin using Eligius pool hashpower.
This means we should all be more like Luke-jr
/s for the logic impaired
This means we should all be more like Luke-jr
/s for the logic impaired
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Checkpoints have been added one hour after a highly controversial hardfork.
Weak response. you were born into a world where everyone has to unavoidably use roads as a public utility and find it useful. BTC was a speculation that you as an adult consciously and willingly choose to use for profit and status despite it having an actual miner attack history while you use the moralistic fear and fud associated with such acts as an argument against SV. that's called hypocrisy.
[doublepost=1542381971][/doublepost]
nice job there trying to tie in one of the most disrespected figures of the big blockists while at the same time ignoring that Artforz was a highly respected mining pioneer and probably the first to use asics and who once held >51% of BTC hash. BitcoinExpress was almost as big, not quite as respected as Artforz because of his many infamous miner generated altcoin attacks. both helped Bitcoin bootstrap as it put fear into many other altcoins from starting up. they are the guys responsible for why litecoin chose gpu ASIC resistant mining in the first place to avoid attack. and why we are all able to sit back and criticize litecoin for being so. brush up on your history.
At best of my knowledge those changes has not being released, you have a point thou, in war time extreme measures are needed. I don't see how this is any different from SV removing the reply protection with the aim to have only one chain. But I could be wrong, thou.
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
@sickpig
I fully agree - in war time extreme measures are needed. Nobody expected anybody to not play dirty. ABC would be stupid to not defend against hashpower attacks.
It's fascinating: Every side seems to wait for the other to make next steps. It's a game that has just been started. Let's see how it plays out, instead of prematuraly decide winners and fight ourselves.
It makes me really sad seeing this thread, which is at the heart of Big block movement, be so divided.
One of my Monero friends told me that he met Calvin Ayre in 2008, on a poker affiliate convention, and was invited to a yacht party. He speculated that Calvin has much much money but no children (I don't know if this is true) and is not interested in money, but in control.
I fully agree - in war time extreme measures are needed. Nobody expected anybody to not play dirty. ABC would be stupid to not defend against hashpower attacks.
It's fascinating: Every side seems to wait for the other to make next steps. It's a game that has just been started. Let's see how it plays out, instead of prematuraly decide winners and fight ourselves.
It makes me really sad seeing this thread, which is at the heart of Big block movement, be so divided.
One of my Monero friends told me that he met Calvin Ayre in 2008, on a poker affiliate convention, and was invited to a yacht party. He speculated that Calvin has much much money but no children (I don't know if this is true) and is not interested in money, but in control.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Actually, they have been published openly in source form on the internet. In war time, release methods may change a bit.
[doublepost=1542384052][/doublepost]
Nice to see a bit of realism back in this thread.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
To win a Bitcoin Cash vote with the help of the Bitcoin Core miners is as if the Swiss government would allow German voters to downvote the Swiss voters.
"The absurdity is screaming" Schopenhauer
"The absurdity is screaming" Schopenhauer
@Zarathustra honest question. Isn't all the hash power created equal?
Does the sha256d performed by me different from the ones performed by someone else just because we have different "vision"?
Does the sha256d performed by me different from the ones performed by someone else just because we have different "vision"?
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
@sickpig
Yes, that's the problem. The Bitcoin-Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash community has no defense mechanism against an invasion of the Non-Cash-non-Bitcoin voters.
Yes, that's the problem. The Bitcoin-Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash community has no defense mechanism against an invasion of the Non-Cash-non-Bitcoin voters.
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Has Schopenhauer become your new favorite philosopher? I only read a short book with collected writing from him. I liked Wille und Vorstellung, but later writing seemed very depressive. Maybe this was why Nietzsche finally broke with his philosophy, to turn insights from relativism in a more optimistic outlook ...
Anyway: I wanted to add that the split in our community seems to separate the more philosophically / economically interested from the more development interested.
I don't know, but this is not the point.
My point is hash power is hash power.
People who put effort and money in defending/attacking a chain... they are all equal to me.
On the other hand it seems like for a bunch of us Ayre money are better/differnt than Roger Ver money.
"Non-cash-non-bitcoin-voters", care to elaborate further? Are you saying that people that spend money to mine BCH using ABC/BU have no right to vote?
just don't be a hypocrite crying foul over SV reorg threats while you've simultaneously profited from a similarly tainted past BTC miner strategy.
and the same goes for me. i've decided i won't say anything more about the checkpoints. if ABC wants to go that route, fine. alls fair in love and hashwars. it's a mistake i've seen from the past. fuck 'em.
this thread should have been shut years ago. i tried in 2015 b/c of @Bloomie fuck's exploitation of it's popularity. that didn't work and it's continued along as a circlejerk that isn't working out.
what the last 24h have made me is more pro-SV than ever. we have mouth breathers over on reddit trying to equate a one line dev initiated checkpoint effort as equivalent to the hundreds of millions that CSW/Coingeek have invested in BCH mining. it's unbelievable. i'm more against overweening voluntaryist devs than ever.
It is the same hash power majority that made BCH initially possible, back then passively protecting it from attacks from Core-only miners.
And they're now actively doing the same as before, but now vs. SV/CSW.
I find that neither absurd nor wrong. (Modulo my qualms about governance and ABC, though that is dwarfed by what CSW represents..)
i hope SV stays alive. at least that forces Bitmain, ViaBTC, and BTC.com to stick around on a BCH chain. those assholes should have been mining BCH all along.
[doublepost=1542386901][/doublepost]and yes, i'm escalating the rhetoric b/c a bunch of you clowns have been at that for weeks now. don't worry, i can hang.
[doublepost=1542386901][/doublepost]and yes, i'm escalating the rhetoric b/c a bunch of you clowns have been at that for weeks now. don't worry, i can hang.
Last edited by a moderator:
@cypherdoc: As you might have noticed, I disagree on the SV angle.
On this:
I am still not sure that that move was wise (time will tell), but I am sure it was motivated by profiting off BTC while building up BCH.
It appears to me to be the process of building up a warchest for when the other prong of the (what some suspect might be from a common enemy) two-sided attack arrives. As it happening now with BSV and CSW on POW after we had Core on PoSM.
And, with all respect, I think you're falling for it.
On this:
.. I can very much relate to that sentiment. But after the fork, it was clear to me that a deliberate retreat was taken to not fight the battle on the open battleground that is Core with all its PoSM and tentactles deeply embedded everywhere.
I am still not sure that that move was wise (time will tell), but I am sure it was motivated by profiting off BTC while building up BCH.
It appears to me to be the process of building up a warchest for when the other prong of the (what some suspect might be from a common enemy) two-sided attack arrives. As it happening now with BSV and CSW on POW after we had Core on PoSM.
And, with all respect, I think you're falling for it.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Oh wait, let's unroll this one.
Please explain to me exactly how I've profited from what has been done to BTC.
I can't help it if SV miners didn't even learn from BTC miners' mistakes.
I can tell you that the miners who honestly created and mined BCH to protect Bitcoin from Segwit, did so in full knowledge of the importance of setting a post-fork checkpoint to avoid hostile reorg.
It seems Craig & co - these wonderfully "intelligent" miners you laud - and their devs, were not even paying attention back in August 2017.
I hate to say it @cypherdoc, but you seem like the 95% you so often spoke of in this thread. And you're not alone, I see a bunch of reasonably intelligent people by your side.
Last edited:
@awemany
>It appears to me to be the process of building up a warchest for when the other prong of the (what some suspect might be from a common enemy) two-sided attack arrives. As it happening now with BSV and CSW on POW after we had Core on PoSM.
>And, with all respect, I think you're falling for it.
if you're trying to infer that CSW has anything to do with Core or gvt, i think you're seriously mistaken. yes, he seems to be an egotistical bastard but i believe enough investigation/probing/attacking of him has been done to rule that out.
i don't care if he's Satoshi or not, all i care about is that at least with the current version of SV, he's advancing the ball in the right direction on the most important blockade we have in the space, the limit. yes, an advertised default limit that's apparently enough of a roadblock both conceptualized and as advertised by voluntaryist devs to be necessary. in my mind, it would be easy to hard fork away from SV if they make a wrong move.
>It appears to me to be the process of building up a warchest for when the other prong of the (what some suspect might be from a common enemy) two-sided attack arrives. As it happening now with BSV and CSW on POW after we had Core on PoSM.
>And, with all respect, I think you're falling for it.
if you're trying to infer that CSW has anything to do with Core or gvt, i think you're seriously mistaken. yes, he seems to be an egotistical bastard but i believe enough investigation/probing/attacking of him has been done to rule that out.
i don't care if he's Satoshi or not, all i care about is that at least with the current version of SV, he's advancing the ball in the right direction on the most important blockade we have in the space, the limit. yes, an advertised default limit that's apparently enough of a roadblock both conceptualized and as advertised by voluntaryist devs to be necessary. in my mind, it would be easy to hard fork away from SV if they make a wrong move.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
p.s. thanks @Bloomie for what appears now to me as resisting an attempt by @cypherdoc to have this thread shut down in the past.
