Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

How so?

ABC have been running around like they own the place (and it appears that de-facto, they do) and we have the nutty professor doing whatever it is he thinks he's doing. As I have said before, I feel that Amaury basically stole the fork from those who were trying to work on it in a community driven and conscientious way.

I am pleased we have bigger blocks. I am pleased to see opcodes being re-enabled and I really am not strongly against CTOR. I just am not happy with the way things are being done. I think others aren't either and CSW has attempted to use this dissatisfaction to his own advantage. It's classic divide and conquer. But make no mistake, team ABC's attitude is what allowed it to come about.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

What's the reason that we still don't implement these optimizations? Our competitors then would have to stop claiming that 'the clients cannot handle blocks >23 MB'.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Thank @Peter R and @freetrader for the metrics.

I don't work for or with nChain, Coingeek or the SV team in any capacity so I'm just speculating here as we all are. There could be some delays (you gotta admit it's pretty ballsy to invite a stress test 3 days into the hash war, while ABC is just blacklisting the Shotgun txs), and I'm not going to feel too embarrassed if they delay a few weeks, but if they don't deliver something pretty nice in a reasonable time I'll certainly revise down my assessment of their competence.

 

[cypherdoc]

>while ABC is just blacklisting the Shotgun txs

they are? what a bunch of cowards.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

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.

You can verify every step for you own with the posted code snippets on reddit (which should be understandable enough to most) without being an expert. You know how asymmetric cryptography works in general, you don't need the details to look through this bl

CSW is repeating the same bluff as in the beginning. How often can he say: "It is really big but I can't tell you now" before you people are sure he is a goddamn liar?

But sure, this time everything is going to be different.

Argl. People. Please.

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.

I am sure you will...

Remember all the big disclosures that were supposed to be happening in the past from CSW?
And all the great discoveries he made?

Yeah, sure this time you will downgrade your confidence. Or not, because one year is enough to produce more bullshit to fog your mind. In a year there will be another big disclosure going to happen in the year after that.

And so on and so on..
[doublepost=1542441578][/doublepost]

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

The absolute incompetency and inability to write a single sensible sentence isn't a clue?
[doublepost=1542441623][/doublepost]

What's the reason that we still don't implement these optimizations? Our competitors then would have to stop claiming that 'the clients cannot handle blocks >23 MB'.

Maybe stuff needs to be tested carefully before making outlandish claims..

 

[cypherdoc]

>Maybe stuff needs to be tested carefully before making outlandish claims..

what about testing the claims from CTOR or DSV? why do they get a pass? otoh, i've never claimed the network can handle 128MB out of the box. and i'm not worried about it. what miner is going to waste time and money with an attack block that will just get orphaned from lack of propagation while risking their reputation for doing it? we haven't seen any miners pumping out self constructed 32MB attack blocks at all as predicted by the limit-minded, just like we won't see them making 128MB blocks either. that elevated limit however will encourage even greater stress test levels to prove the network can handle way more than the supposed network dev experts imagined while also putting pressure on node operators and miners to up their game. and when we find the bottlenecks, SV will fix it.

 

[Griffith]

ABC is not blacklisting the shotgun txs. thats just false

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

what about testing the claims from CTOR or DSV? why do they get a pass?

They shouldn't and the development and testing process for the BCH clients is horrifying.
But CTOR is actually a step in the direction of having huge blocks (although a controversial one) so I don't really follow your line of thought?

As I said before: We need a dynamic blocksize limit asap before anything else. (just putting a sticker "128 MB" on "your client" doesn't help in any way.)

what miner is going to waste time and money with an attack block that will just get orphaned from lack of propagation while risking their reputation for doing it?

The same kind of miner that announces to burn a ton of money to destroy a chain because they didn't get their way?

SV will fix it.

You can't develop a client by posting memes on twitter.

 

[go1111111]

geezuz

https://bitco.in/forum/goto/post?id=84155#post-84155

You initially said "we have many pro ABC folk in this thread talking about reorging the SV chain". When asked for evidence you linked to one person who only referred to such re-orgs after SV re-orgs ABC.

Are there other ABC supporters who advocated re-orgs against SV? You did say "many." Are there any at all who advocated it as something other than a response to SV first launching that attack on ABC?

 

[Peter R]

>while ABC is just blacklisting the Shotgun txs

they are? what a bunch of cowards.

Neither BU nor ABC is blacklisting the shotgun transactions.
[doublepost=1542446709][/doublepost]

What's the reason that we still don't implement these optimizations? Our competitors then would have to stop claiming that 'the clients cannot handle blocks >23 MB'.

Many of the improvements have been integrated. I had both BU(SV) and SV nodes running during the chain split, and the BU(SV) nodes held up much better during the large (32MB) blocks than the SV nodes. The SV nodes were nearly unresponsive. @theZerg could give a better progress update, however.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

lol, Roger Ver cheering that he and his developers have made the damage to Bitcoin Cash sustainable

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9xtyrb/due_to_abc_releasing_version_0184_with_a/

If this ever ends, there will be a new army of people telling the world that Bitmaincash is a centralized shitcoin. Former lovers are the best haters. And this is no malice or a surprise, but it was absolutely predictable - and I did, more or less, weeks before SV even stepped up. Now BCH has an open dictatorship that seems to be too dumb to reflect the impacts of their actions on network effects and branding.

Edit: Good news is that the next hard fork will be uncontroversial. Everybody will just agree with what ABC wants, either because everybody know that it will happen anyway, or because nobody with another opinion is left.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Christoph Bergmann
What would be different if SV miners had won?
You'd rather have coingeek/nchain coin instead of bitcoin.com/abc/coinbase/BU/xt/bitmain/btc.com/viabtc/.../.../....... coin?

Honestly you people need to calm down.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

It would have proofen that not even the world's biggest mining company can't control Bitcoin Cahs. It would have been proofen that the attempt to establish a dictatorship by ABC would have failed. It would have been proofen that Nakamoto Consensus makes surprising results. And so on. It would have shown that Bitcoin Cash is a leaderless, anarchistic system, governed by pure PoW.

There will be no calm down. Sorry. The transformation of friends into enemies has not even started yet. This was what you intentionally have chosen.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

It would have proofen that not even the world's biggest mining company can't control Bitcoin Cahs.

, governed by pure PoW.

Maybe the ongoing legalization of cannabis wasn't such a good idea after all!

It would have been proofen that Nakamoto Consensus makes surprising results.

Well, I don't think surprising results are what you actually want for sound money. Maybe we just want different things after all!

Bitcoin Cash is a leaderless, anarchistic system

Well, you had better listened to one of the big miners:

Anarchists are fools

Craig S. Wright July, 11th, 2018.

https://archive.fo/cNfWq
[doublepost=1542451659][/doublepost]@Christoph Bergmann
Without polemic:
Imho your post shows what the problem is: "You guys" don't know what you want at all, all you knew was that ABC was bad.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Imho your post shows what the problem is: "You guys" don't know what you want at all, all you knew was that ABC was bad.

Maybe this is not such a bad point. It is what I say for weeks: I'm less interested in SV winning than in ABC not winning. For me it was that I did not want Bitcoin Cash becoming the centralized shitcoin all my Core loyal friends say it is. This event just proofs that I was absolutely wrong, that I have been duped, not by CSW, but by myself and people like Roger Ver. I just had hope that SV would be able to help out.

At least I like the vision of SV - restore 0.1, kick the limits, freeze the protocol, innovate on top of it, rule by hashpower instead of developer authority.

To illustrate my point with some personal experiences. I'm very rarely seen on meetups and conferences in Germany, so I don't know many German Bitcoiners IRL, maybe 100 or so. From them only about six are Pro Bitcoin Cash. This is already a very low margin, a very low grade of adoption. From this six three are pro ABC, without being really excited about the fork, but concerned about ABC's roadmap / dictatorial behavior; while three are against ABC and for SV. Online contracts (twitter, blog, forums) seem to roughly reproduce these numbers.

So, we have a very low adoption, and our BCH bosses took the full dictatorship card, just to do something that will kill 1/3 to 1/2 of adoption. Let it be 1/10 or 1/5 - it is still an incredibly stupid move.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

ABC did not decide the outcome.

Miners and businesses and other implementations (may I remind you, that bitcoin.com uses BU to mine on BCH?) decided to mine, use and support a BCH protocol compatible to the latest ABC version.
There has been a lot of criticism against ABC's roadmap and their way of acting. But people decided to unite against a real threat, which is nChain.

Also, do you remember, that this hardfork introduced a new opcode that BU (so in a way you) has voted for? IIRC it was Andrew's baby and all current BCH implementations chose to implement it.

rule by hashpower instead of developer authority.

For the nth time: This is what we've actually seen. It is just that "your" side lost.

At least I like the vision of SV - restore 0.1

0.1 is incompatible to the current chain for many reasons. Do you want to roll back thousands of blocks?

kick the limits,

Again, kicking the limits doesn't help longterm (we have enough breathing room with 32 MB to find agreement on a dynamic limit) and just putting a 500 mph tachometer in your tractor won't make it a Lamborghini.

edit: And tell me, what is so horrifying about the new hardfork rules? What harm did CTOR or DSV do? In which way does it harm the vision of sound money and P2P cash?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

For the nth time: This is what we've actually seen. It is just that "your" side lost.

I wouldn't say this prematurely. I still depends on how long the BTC-miners can occupy BCH. Yes, I know, polemic use of words. And yes, this would be a win by hashpower, and I would absolutely accept it as the new BCH. I just would be less interested in it

Again, kicking the limits doesn't help longterm (we have enough breathing room with 32 MB to find agreement on a dynamic limit) and just putting a 500 mph tachometer in your tractor won't make it a Lamborghini.

It would allow to freeze the protocol and stop these highly damaging hard forks.

And tell me, what is so horrifying about the new hardfork rules? What harm did CTOR or DSV do? In which way does it harm the vision of sound money and P2P cash?

They have been decided by a developer gremium against significant hashpower and community opposition, inflicted a chain split, push off significant parts of the community, needed a takeover by BTC-hashpower to get activated, and strengthen the ABC roadmap which includes further (likely) controversial hard forks. This harms the vision of sound money and P2P cash in every possible aspect. Maybe it destroys it, but for sure it marks a major disadvantage against the competing P2P cryptocurrencies.

"Hei, why do you not use XRP? It scales fantastically!" - "Oh, I don't like it, it is highly centralized. I rather use ... ahm ..."

And I have zero interest in discussing again if or why or why not CTOR or DSV have technical disadvantages. The harm their actviation did is absolutely obvious.

 

[sickpig]

SV clawing it's way back:

Due to the new DAA comparing the 2 chains using just block height is at best misleading, you should look at accumulated PoW.

If you just look at block height, e.g. ETC is 200K blocks further away than ETH. Does this mean that ETC is more valuable then ETH?

Back to accumulated PoW, Bitcoin ABC/BU chain is currently 52.9% ahead on proof of work in respect to the SV one. cash.coin.dance is showing this stats in the home page.[/QUOTE]

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Satoshi's Shotgun: for some reason the txs reportedly aren't reaching the ABC nodes. It could be individual miners blacklisting even if the software doesn't do it by default. Either way, pretty weak sauce.

http://cash.coin.dance

And all the great discoveries he made?

I'll get to that.

Many of the improvements have been integrated. I had both BU(SV) and SV nodes running during the chain split, and the BU(SV) nodes held up much better during the large (32MB) blocks than the SV nodes. The SV nodes were nearly unresponsive.

People are maligning SV here continually for not releasing the code. The protocol is public, but the node software seems private at the moment, as SV miners don't seem to be having any issues.

 

[sickpig]

ABC is just blacklisting the Shotgun txs

Would you mind elaborate more on the point? A link to some kind of source would suffice.