Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

@Christoph Bergmann

I assure you there are far better cryptographers than me, frantically checking this right now. Sent you pm of second source that shows how to do it in python.

The obvious (deliberate?) error by checksum is that this is not Hals address, it was FROM Block 9 TO Hal.

 

[AdrianX]

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.

I don't see this at all. It reads to me like a slack echo chamber interpretation of CSW. I've been around long enough to know some people, talk a big game and some people self-destruct.

There is only one way to win global money. We all win by playing together leveraging each other's strengths and compensating for each other's weaknesses. I don't trust contracts, honour, or promises. I trust people to survive and want at any cost. The players who don't want to survive should be left behind as they are dead weight in this effort, the players who self-destruct should be left alone to self-destruct. We are in an infinite game, it is stable so long as the players want to survive.

CSW as much of a random card as he is should be put in the "wants to survive box" that's all, feer of him self-destructing should be ignored as he will leave if he self-destructs. The Will to survival is the only tool that can be leveraged in Bitcoin. CSW is deadweight or energy that wants to survive.

The cult of "You must hate CSW" is dead weight, adjust your strategy so you don't need to run around like Chicken Little telling everyone the sky is falling.

nChain are in the game until they are not, CSW is what he is. Trying to define nChain and components as anything but a player is counterproductive to growing the adoption of world money. All you need to do is find the survival necessities and you have an ally in the win global money game.
[doublepost=1542403570][/doublepost]

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.

This is a market function, not the code is law, it is how the future markets must be designed, Miners activate rules that create investor value, no the authoritarian developers are in control and put rules into code. BUIP135 is the first step towards this reality. The existing way markets are deployed encourages chain splits and followers to pick leaders.
[doublepost=1542404029,1542403234][/doublepost]

the poison block is key to scaling Bitcoin; the constant threat of one in an unlimited scenario will be the Mother of invention.

the poison block used as an attack vector was mitigated by one of the best Bitcoin developers ever, anonymous to me, but they left his clue as to how it works. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/technologies/parallel-validation The less competent developers in this space don't have a clue as to what to prioritize)

 

[cypherdoc]

here's Hal:

When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/01/03/hal-finney-received-the-first-bitcoin-transaction-heres-how-he-describes-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1dfc735d4167

block 9 was mined exactly one hour after the genesis block. Hal hadn't even heard of Bitcoin at that point. nor had anyone else quite likely.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block-height/1

who the fuck else could've mined that block?

 

[freetrader]

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Isn't that pretty much a repetition of the Sartre charade?
As far as I can tell there is no matching clear text to the signed hash? Just another "you'll have to wait n months" mystic telling?

Come on..

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Hm ... it might be possible to forge a signature when you know the pubkey, so that you have "some" valid signature for "some" message, but it shouldn't be possible to create a signature that validates for a specific message, like the quoted sentence - this would allow to spend coins.

But I guess I miss a lot of parts of the signature validation process. Cryptography is a really bad proof of anything, lol. Nobody know, and in the end everybody is trusting experts.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Do we know the preimage or not?

Is it "I do not want to be public..." or something else?

 

[BldSwtTrs]

here's Hal:
block 9 was mined exactly one hour after the genesis block. Hal hadn't even heard of Bitcoin at that point. nor had anyone else quite likely.

Actually, Hal audited part of the code before the relase, as per:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/id-known-what-we-were-starting-ray-dillinger/

 

[Zarathustra]

"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?

Unfortunately, the same miners who didn't vote with their CPU power to defend Bitcoin against the Blockstream attack and still mainly mine the North corean chain, now have a right to downvote the Bitcoin Cash voters.

 

[cypherdoc]

looks like Hal starting asking Satoshi questions on Nov 9, 2008, so yeah.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

 

[Richy_T]

The checkpoint issue is a red herring, it's only valid once it's used.

But then...... and it becomes a slippery slope. Who issued it, who knew first and who doesn't get to know? If used in anger like this, it instantly turns any blockchain into a permissioned ledger.

It's a tricky question and it's hard to pin down because once it's more than a few blocks deep, it's very unlikely to ever become an issue. If it's only used occasionally, that is. If it is used continuously, I'd say you've effectively abandoned proof of work.

The thing with checkpoints is it depends on why you are using them. I don't think ABC's use is very valid. The thing is, there is so much that has happened since the 2017 fork that give me cause for concern, I find it hard to get worked up about one more thing.

I feel like those of us who just wanted a block size increase have been taken for a ride by opportunists and I don't see a good way out.

 

[cypherdoc]

checkpoints were only used to facilitate the IBD, as pwuille pointed out in that link i posted. in BTC, there were hundreds of thousands of blocks in btwn checkpoints, of which i only remember two. could be one or two more.
[doublepost=1542413313][/doublepost]SV clawing it's way back:

 

[RollieMe]

If it's only used occasionally, that is. If it is used continuously, I'd say you've effectively abandoned proof of work.

I'd almost invert that. It could be used regularly while the network is harmony and in consensus and it would be irrelevant. If it's only used occasionally, say to prevent hash from determining the survivor in a contentious split then... well draw your own conclusions but "it's only used occasionally" or "it was a war time measure" are slippery slopes IMO.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Everything makes me think CSW is Satoshi except his fake proofs which make me question everything...

 

[Richy_T]

I'd almost invert that. It could be used regularly while the network is harmony and in consensus and it would be irrelevant. If it's only used occasionally, say to prevent hash from determining the survivor in a contentious split then... well draw your own conclusions but "it's only used occasionally" or "it was a war time measure" are slippery slopes IMO.

What I was going for was that if it's being used in wartime, it's likely to be used quite frequently since the risk of rollback is present over a long period. I agree that if there's no contention, it becomes a near non-issue.

 

[freetrader]

I feel like those of us who just wanted a block size increase have been taken for a ride by opportunists and I don't see a good way out.

How so?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

CSW's signed document about Segwit, if it exists, isn't promised to be revealed until late next year. So yes, this is another classic Craig Wright cocktease.

If at the end of next year he hasn't completed the proof that he holds the keys to some coins from block 9, I'll substantially downgrade my confidence in his promises.
[doublepost=1542428620][/doublepost]Regarding the stress test, I hear there will be a lot of txs sent by the Satoshi's Shotgun crew but probably not enough for there to be a bunch of 128MB blocks possible, if any. There is of course no promise of 128MB blocks, but we should see some significantly above 32MB.

To avoid goalpost moves, can we get some numbers from SV's critics on what would constitute impressive blocksize handling?

Size and/or number or density, or origin or "naturalness." Otherwise I feel like every new scaling feat will be met with, "Oh just 30 60 80MB? Pshh, everyone already knew that was doable. And it wasn't sustained for long enough to count. And those were just blocks stuffed with their own txs. And oh look, some non-mining nodes and services went down so SV failed."

Think SV is inferior tech? Then spell out what performance benchmarks you expect SV not to exceed.

 

[freetrader]

Look @Zangelbert Bingledack , we know that the "SV" side isn't planning to use SV to handle the transaction load, because they didn't actually plan to implement the necessary performance changes on there.

 

[Peter R]

Regarding the stress test, I hear there will be a lot of txs sent by the Satoshi's Shotgun crew but probably not enough for there to be a bunch of 128MB blocks possible, if any. There is of course no promise of 128MB blocks, but we should see some significantly above 32MB.

To avoid goalpost moves, can we get some numbers from SV's critics on what would constitute impressive blocksize handling?

Size and/or number or density, or origin or "naturalness." Otherwise I feel like every new scaling feat will be met with, "Oh just 30 60 80MB? Pshh, everyone already knew that was doable. And it wasn't sustained for long enough to count. And those were just blocks stuffed with their own txs. And oh look, some non-mining nodes and services went down so SV failed."

Think SV is inferior tech? Then spell out what performance benchmarks you expect SV not to exceed.

With Andrew Stone’s optimizations, we sustained around 128 MB blocks on the Gigablock Testnet. If we see a one hour period with half this throughput on SV, I will be impressed. So 64 MB x 6 = 386 MB over any 60 min window.

 

[freetrader]

I might be somewhat impressed if they do full 128MB blocks for the same period, but with blocks evidently built from transactions broadcast on their network, not mega blocks generated in a withholding fashion.

I don't expect we will see the code in that case though, these would probably be closed developments by some or other company.