Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[BldSwtTrs]

First acknowledgement there may be a split from SV:

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Bitmain doesn't seem interested in participating in the stress test.

[doublepost=1542466745][/doublepost]I don't think Calvin ever said there would be no split. That is Craig's private phrasing. Poisson process and all that. I trust the ambiguity needs no explanation.

 

[freetrader]

There's a lot of things that need explanation. We'll discuss them in due time.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Our very own @digitsu on now on http://hashwar.live

Fair enough, @freetrader.
[doublepost=1542468423,1542467291][/doublepost]@sickpig See previous page, but also looking at the actual blocks mined.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

So, hashwar over? Most overrated event in Bitcoin history

I should stay away from Bitcoin fork affairs. I always end up supporting the losing side.

And, honestly, ABC played their cards well, while SV presented nothing but smoke.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Now CSW is saying SV doesn't need to catch up in term of accumulated PoW. He says even if ABC is 20 times longer and SV kill them because at some point SV has more than 51% of the hash power, SV wins.

I don't think it is as most of us understand Nakamoto Consensus.

 

[wrstuv31]

My understanding is that any chain can be attacked by any miner at any time. If that miner overpowers the network, they essentially own it. Furthermore, it seems like the threat of this possibility is what keeps everyone honest, and the rules stable.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I guess we'll see Ayre and CSW trying to sue single developers and miners etc. in the upcoming time. Might be the next step after losing the "hashwar" game..

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Many say that no smart person could think Craig Wright isn't a moron. Here are some counterexamples - some smart, some streetwise, and some technical. Note that I am not appealing to any of these people as authorities; the argument about what smart people think was raised by others, and is offered only to those who think it matters. You can decide for yourself if each of these people are smart. I came to my views on CSW before knowing any of their views.

"Craig is better than the Satoshi of my imagination. I like him better than the Satoshi I had envisioned." -Daniel Krawisz

A full video on why Krawisz thinks Craig is smart and understands Bitcoin very well:


Ryan X. Charles, one of many places he voices his views on Craig:


"Frankly if you don't believe Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, you're in denial." -Lorien Gamaroff, Centbee Wallet

Clemens Ley credits Craig for coming up with the idea of what Ley presented at the March conference, for finding proofs for the same result and for taking the idea further than Ley did (cued up to one of the parts where he credits Craig with discovering it first, at 19:46):


This is the same idea that was lauded by Thomas van der Wansem, who doesn't think well of CSW but is one of the top 5 keenest intellects in this space as far as I have seen; he said, "Clemens colored outside the lines, but in doing so he showed the lines to be irrelevant." Thus according to Ley, the same should apply to CSW. Watch the whole video to see how smart and technical you think Ley is in the field. And note that CSW had known this by 2015. He was laughed off by Nick Szabo and just about everyone at the time, but then since Ley's presentation it has been regarded as obvious and "we knew it all along."

This is the typical pattern CSW's ideas go through:

1) They are ignored. (~98% of them are still ignored)
2) They are dismissed as nonsense/wrong/irrelevant.
3) They are accepted as always having been obvious.

This creates a perfect guard for the ego of those who dislike him, seamless from stage to stage.

Craig colors outside the lines, usually doesn't explain things well, presents with an often horrible demeanor and style, and often uses words in an esoteric way, but in every case where I have had enough field expertise to investigate, he has always been right. Ryan X. Charles has said the very same thing on this.

When optimizing for correct reasoning and sound conclusions, most even very smart people are actually optimizing for reasoning and conclusions of which their peers and academic authority figures would approve. Seeking certitude is subtly replaced by seeking that warm sense of authority figures smiling down in approval. This is an efficient heuristic in most areas of life, even for high-level technical people, but it breaks down when trying to analyze someone who "colors outside the lines" and is as unconcerned about academic signalling as Craig Wright.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

@Zangelbert Bingledack
I would totally believe CSW is Satoshi if he had not blurred things with one fake proof 3 years ago and yesterday "incomplete" proof.

And I think what makes most people not taking him seriously is the fact that he pulled this fake proof 3 years ago.

You cannot expect a person to invest time in researching this story when everybody know him as "the scammer that say he would cryptographically prove he is Satoshi, tried to do so and failed".

Last week I did some due diligence to reassess my position, mainly because you wrote convincing argument here.

At the end of the process, I was almost 100% convince that he was Satoshi. But then yesterday, there was this @Satoshi signature which doesn't prove anything, and this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/?count=50&after=t3_9xxgfp

It looks really bizarre. And the timing of this signature... in this middle of the hash war, in order to probably help SV hoping people wouldn't catch the trick... this looks scammy.

Every time he tries to cryptographically mingled with his Satoshihood, he just lose a ton of credibility.

I want to believe him, but each time I do so, he is caught lying, and I feel betrayed.

 

[Griffith]

@BldSwtTrs Can you walk me through some of the points that made you almost 100% convinced that CSW is satoshi? I'm really curious about this. Ive been in the space a very long time so it would be nice to get a walk through from someone who is new. (not trolling, genuinely curious)

 

[8up]

You guys seem overly dramatic. Did the world stop turning? Was the idea of sound money eradicated from our minds?

I personally don't care if Craig was part of the Satoshi group or not. (I tend to think he was). I personally don't care if BTC is lead by Core or BCH is lead by SV, ABC or BU. It's a long term play. I don't care if SV forks off and leaves two centralized coins. I'd like them to re-join and voice their opinions within the system. However, just as everybody else they are free to point their hash power to what ever cause they deem valuable. Bitcoin comes with responsibility. Be your own bank comes with the rights to one's own bank-ruptcy.

Centralization begets decentralization begets centralization.... It's the flow of life. You learn to appreciate it or fight it ad infinitum.

Let's move to year 2040 and look back to today. What will we see (at all)? What from today's decisions and fights will still be recognizable then?

Most of us overestimate the impact of certain decisions and infliction points and underestimate the hidden incentives at work.

Just chill.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

@Griffith this message from Zangelbert is a good start, as the following ones on the next pages: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1276#post-83762

The video from Ryan X Charles posted in the last message from Zangelbert is also a very good sum up. You may then research this names on Google : Ian Grigg, Phil Wilson, Dave Kleiman.

I would add Joseph Vaughn Perlin aka NewLiberty. I was at a private event in Estonia in 2014 with 20 other bitcoiners or so. There was NewLiberty there who tell us that he met with Satoshi at an US hacker conference around 2006 (maybe 2005 or 2007, I am not remember the year, but it was before 2008 for sure). He obviously didn't tell us who Satoshi was at the time. But then when Wright declared publicly to be Satoshi, NewLiberty confirmed on Twitter that Wright was the man he met at the conference.

Also, some CSW's personality traits fit with known Satoshi's one. For example Gavin said Satoshi was very impatient with people who he thinks were incompetent, and that fits perfectly with CSW's personality.

This week I mainly watched as many video I can from him. And I can conclude he is very smart and he has an outstanding understanding of economics. Notably, in the bitgold article from Nick Szabo, the economic model was totally flawed.

So there is no formal proof, just an strong intuition and an intimate conviction. Taking in consideration all the indirect evidence, from a probabilistic point of view, this is a bet that is above 95% of certainty.

All that being said, if you throw in the fact that he had pulled weird cryptographic tricks two times now, my degree of confidence plummets below 50%.

 

[cypherdoc]

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?

is your goal to paint ABC supporters as purely virtuous? really? after instituting checkpoints and openly considering changing PoW? do you honestly think discussion of an SV reorg exists solely here from @awemany? we should ask him if he's had or seen any other discussion about the consideration in other channels. b/c it would be naive to think not he's the only one who's discussed this. i've seen other ppl mention it on reddit (don't ask me to go dig them up). we even had @sickpig @Christoph Bergmann and my self acknowledge and extend that discussion to alls fair in war. and besides, many of us have already moved well beyond pretending either side is goody two shoe, which you seen to be claiming ABC is. this is war and alls fair it seems. but go ahead, impugn me for extrapolating when a prominent BU dev starts talking about attacks i've never even heard of before, like "mutual exclusion mining".

 

[cypherdoc]

a blast from the past. CSW isn't the only one who endorses attacking competing chains. it's not as morally repugnant as many of you pretend:

“It may not be necessary to attack it,” he said. “But to attack it is always an option.”-Jihan Wu

“I’m not even sure this kind of thing should be considered immoral — majority hashpower acting selfishly for their own economic benefit (both short and long term) is the basic incentive structure that makes Bitcoin work.”-Gavin Andresen

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-unlimited-miners-may-be-preparing-51-attack-bitcoin/

 

[Zarathustra]

@cypherdoc

That's a nice overview on the empty promises of the ABC miners and how they've been undermining BU and Satoshi's vision with their empty promises. They are not miners, they are underminers, multicoiners, flip-flop voting with their CPU power.

 

[bitsko]

Since this coin has always been an insecure plaything of the BTC miners and a hedge to most at best, if SV team decisively fucks it up in a moment when charitable hash donation is at its lowest in the dominant cartel, the less work chain may get fucked in retaliation.


Not my favorite scenario but sure is on my mind.

In the meantime folks can thank their opponents for getting some extra security from their BTC overlords.

Unfortunate they arent't actually incentivised to stay beyond the perceived threat. Back to 3% global sha256d security?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I, personally, learned a few things during this affair. Mostly, that I had false expectations to BCH. I supported SV because I WISHED that they could rescue BCH from this. Maybe it was nothing but wishful thinking. But aren't wishes what makes markets go round?

What did I learn?

- even if you have a strong majority of hashpower you cannot veto a protocol change. SV had majority of resident hashpower and was against the fork, but we have it anyway. Hashpower might give you a veto on BTC, but not on BCH.

- it is enough to temporarily overpower resident hashpowers with a tiny part of BTC-hashpower and enforce every kind of change. This makes BCH basically a toy project of BTC miners.

- Decentralized Development was just a marketing phrase. At least when it comes to protocol changes.

- BCH developers have no fundamental different approach to blocksizes than Core. They don't want to allow blocksizes higher than what a few developers determine secure.

With other words: BCH is not Bitcoin, because it doesn't have its security properties. Instead it is a centralized Altcoin in which just another developers decide about the secure blocksize limit. Maybe this was true all the time, but after this affair it is impossible for me to ignore it.

 

[bitsko]

Correct. The people who declared victory never thought it was Bitcoin. Big blocker sandbox, sidechain before sidechain tech worked well.

Which baffles me why they wanted to leech off of BTC branding. The only reason to parrot the BTC branding in my opinion would be to take it over. Not likely.

 

[Griffith]

@Griffith this message from Zangelbert is a good start, as the following ones on the next pages: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1276#post-83762

The video from Ryan X Charles posted in the last message from Zangelbert is also a very good sum up. You may then research this names on Google : Ian Grigg, Phil Wilson, Dave Kleiman.

I would add Joseph Vaughn Perlin aka NewLiberty. I was at a private event in Estonia in 2014 with 20 other bitcoiners or so. There was NewLiberty there who tell us that he met with Satoshi at an US hacker conference around 2006 (maybe 2005 or 2007, I am not remember the year, but it was before 2008 for sure). He obviously didn't tell us who Satoshi was at the time. But then when Wright declared publicly to be Satoshi, NewLiberty confirmed on Twitter that Wright was the man he met at the conference.

Also, some CSW's personality traits fit with known Satoshi's one. For example Gavin said Satoshi was very impatient with people who he thinks were incompetent, and that fits perfectly with CSW's personality.

This week I mainly watched as many video I can from him. And I can conclude he is very smart and he has an outstanding understanding of economics. Notably, in the bitgold article from Nick Szabo, the economic model was totally flawed.

So there is no formal proof, just an strong intuition and an intimate conviction. Taking in consideration all the indirect evidence, from a probabilistic point of view, this is a bet that is above 95% of certainty.

All that being said, if you throw in the fact that he had pulled weird cryptographic tricks two times now, my degree of confidence plummets below 50%.

Hmmmmm.... Ok. Its interesting that you evaluated his lack of caring about obscuring things (like plagiarism) as a symptom of him thinking that he is already adored because he is satoshi. I see it as a diversionary tactic designed to keep you guessing and distracted so he can do other things under the radar like a sleight of hand magic trick just on a larger scale.This seems to be a very similar tactic to how some less popular politicians get elected. They know they are unpopular so they keep you distracted until they get to where they want to be and by the time you catch up you are left thinking "ah fack".

I disagree that "bitcoin hasnt been banned because they like it but they will ban the anonymity coins". A lot of the more wealthy countries have governments that are set up to just be more complicated oligarchys that give its citizens the illusion of choice rather than the democracies that they claim to be. Bitcoin makes controlling every aspect of their citizens lives harder and they would actually hate it because of this. However they cant outright ban it because it would look too much like "we are banning this because we cant control it" and that would damage the illusion of choice. So instead they try to regulate it to death and label anything that could be used as a privacy tool (like mixers) as money laundering even though it more than likely isnt. Cashless societies are super dangerous to the freedoms of an individual.

But those are just some of my own opinions. Thanks for your insight.