Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

Is it reasonable to declare victory for the ABC-rules before you are comfortable to split all your BCH using DSV?

Should Bitcoin Unlimited split all it's BCH funds using DSV?

 

[sickpig]

@sickpig See previous page, but also looking at the actual blocks mined.

so I was asking about evidence of "ABC is just blacklisting the Shotgun txs"...

Didn't had the time to go through previous pages because I was busy monitoring the outcomes of the "stresstest" that was supposedly set up for Nov 17th at 13 UTC.

In fact I did monitor the "stresstest" and, contrary to what happened during the last one we had just before the fork, the TPS(**) on BCH network never reached significant throughput.

It stays around 10 TPS most of the time with very brief spike to 20/30 TPS and just one very short sone that break the 50TPS threshold around 21:30 UTC.

This was all that has been produced by "Shotgun" yesterday. i.e. very few if you ask me.

I can assure you that the txs were not blacklisted on my side because I set up 4 nodes to monitor the situations. The 4 nodes run stock BU dev branch code. No code is present in BU to perform txns filtering rather than the usual min fee rate and tx min size constraint(100 bytes).

Having said what would have probably happened is that someone screwed up the set up of the tool supposed to be used for the "stresstest" or that someone else try to stop them. I think that the former happened even if this is difficult to say because there is no working transactions/block explorer for the SV chain. Imho what happened is that they somewhat inadvertently tainted the fund available to perform the "stresstest" with some SV only UTXO...


(*) stresstest in this case is an euphemism, we could have call it attack cause in the intention expressed by Ayre and CSW the aim was to use it annihilate ABC/BU chains.

(**) TPS = transactions per second.

 

[freetrader]

I can confirm I was running a BU node and saw the same as @sickpig .

This effect could also be achieved using rate limiting by a controlled infrastructure (using whitelists to send at unlimited rate only to nodes that play a part in your plan).

This could be used to make it seem as if all others must be filtering or censoring transactions when in fact they weren't.

On the other hand, I would fully expect that mining pool nodes on the BCH (ABC) side did have some protective measures in place to safeguard economic activity on the chain.

After all, they knew the stress test was being conducted as part of the plan of the SV side during of this fork upgrade split.
[doublepost=1542551239][/doublepost]On the subject of splitting large amounts of coins (like BU's Bitcoin Cash), my opinion, which doesn't really matter in the decision of the org, is that it would be safe as long as its done using coinbase mixin, not using the opcode techniques.

Any coin that starts to censor based on mined coinbases has climbed the shitcoin winner's pedestal.
[doublepost=1542551378][/doublepost]https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9y17bg/greg_maxwell_reveals_how_csw_may_have_fooled/

 

[Norway]

was to use it annihilate ABC/BU chains.

Interesting language.

 

[sickpig]

@Norway, do you think that Bitmain's chain would have been more appropriate choice of words? /s

What I meant was "chain mined by ABC and BU clients", which at best of my knowledge are the only 2 clients used to produce block template candidates.

That said I'm interested in your feedback on the matter I'm discussng w/ @Zangelbert Bingledack, do you have any.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

Now that the lines have been drawn, and we can more clearly see what miners intent has been all along (now without the distraction that is SV), is there a way to forge enough cooperation with BCH Core to get back onto the vision. If they can be brought grudgingly to 128MB, will that be significant or will they just keep stalling. How do we get past this blocksize uncertainty once and for all? And is that basically the battle which must be fought and won right now? Or is it over already anyways?

 

[sickpig]

@SPAZTEEQ

I'm supposing that with "BCH core" you mean ABC/BU miners, having said that there is a proposal on the plate to remove block size limit for good.

See https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/149

The kernel of the algo:

We propose a dynamic limit to the block size based on the the **largest** number out of the following:

1. Median block size over the last 12,960 blocks (about three months) multiplied by 10 and calculated when a block is connected to the blockchain.

2. Median block size over the last 52,560 blocks (about one year) multiplied by 10 and calculated when a block is connected to the blockchain.

3. 32,000,000 bytes (32MB).

Aside from the largest of the above, the limit shall also have a static upper bound at 10,000,000,000,000 bytes (10TB).

What do you think of it?

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

I don't know technically, but people who still believe in p2p cash should be looking at this carefully right now, not 1 month before the next fork. Perhaps there is much good that can come out of what has just transpired.

 

[bitsko]

@Norway, do you think that Bitmain's chain would have been more appropriate choice of words? /s

BTC's redheaded stepchain

 

[freetrader]

A message to Ryan X. Charles and Yours.org.

https://www.yours.org/content/censorship-is-never-ok-6d8375d5b12b

 

[bitsko]

this is not the only threat of violence from robert miller, but a particularly odious one.

further, the user was bragging about exploiting the your.org site.

bans are justifiable in cases like this, and coffee beans can help to reset the olfactory after the inhalation of excessive pachouli.


on telegram, the user typically makes violent threats and deletes them moments later.

 

[Norway]

@Norway, do you think that Bitmain's chain would have been more appropriate choice of words? /s

What I meant was "chain mined by ABC and BU clients", which at best of my knowledge are the only 2 clients used to produce block template candidates.

That said I'm interested in your feedback on the matter I'm discussng w/ @Zangelbert Bingledack, do you have any.

The chains are defined by the rules they follow, not the clients mining them. BU is compatible with both chains.

I said your language was interesting, because you identify BU with the ABC rules. The BU membership voted no to CTOR.

I don't have any data to provide you regarding SatoshiShotgun. Brendan Lee (@CoinstorageGuru on Twitter) can probably give you some answers.

 

[cypherdoc]

@SPAZTEEQ

I'm supposing that with "BCH core" you mean ABC/BU miners, having said that there is a proposal on the plate to remove block size limit for good.

See https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/149

The kernel of the algo:



What do you think of it?

I like the asymmetry of the adjustments and the 32mb floor. more discussion of the game theory around manipulation if the algo should take place but I don't see anything obvious offhand especially with the 32mb floor providing an adequate buffer. if we ever get up to that level of economic activity, manipulation by hostile fiat actors thereafter would probably be pointless. I'd eat my hat if this ever gets adopted in the next year by amaury and team. however it's good to see so many devs discussing and refining it to hopefully push it through asap. in the setting of an algo like this or a complete removal of the limit, im totally fine with optimisations like CTOR and even DSV as long as they don't screw the miners economic incentives around sound money. we're all watching.
[doublepost=1542558202,1542557595][/doublepost]let me rephrase that if a permanent solution, like the adaptive algo or limit removal, is not put in place by a presumed winning ABC chain within the year, i'd consider BCH a failed project.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Monero already has an adaptative blocksize algorithm since several years. So maybe Monero is the real Bitcoin?

 

[cypherdoc]

The chains are defined by the rules they follow, not the clients mining them.

this is an example of advanced Bitcoin thinking. it's subtle and not so evident in all the dev teams i've observed. the code should be viewed as a public utility or even a Mona Lisa; something coddled, protected, and rarely touched up, if ever. and then, only to enhance public appreciation (economic activity). unfortunately, that's not the case. you can see it in the never ending crawling all over each btwn devs to get something into the code as a mark of individual accomplishment, and in the worst case, economic subsidy for a pet project. the worst manifestation of this was Blockstream, which was so bald faced as to be organized by key core devs and which then scooped up the top dozen or so more. and why i'm not afraid of CSW. i don't consider him the owner of SV even if he is Satoshi or the worst fraud on earth. if Core had emphasized onchain scaling and lifted/removed/adapted the blocksize limit, everything would have been fine. but they didn't; they acted like they owned the client and thus the code.
[doublepost=1542559118][/doublepost]@BldSwtTrs

it's also about network effects and maintaining the original genesis block. those early adopters are the one's who will get this to the finish line.

 

[freetrader]

Yours.org has banned me subsequent to that post.

[doublepost=1542561013,1542560392][/doublepost]So @bitsko , this proves your previous argument incorrect.

I am an ABC supporter. Ryan made good on his word to censor us.

My only previous post on Yours was one about 1 year ago, when I suggested improvements to the site. That one has also been censored it seems (at least I can't see it anymore).

 

[cypherdoc]

in general, censorship is bad.

is Yours a private for profit entity for Ryan? or has he held it out as a public forum?

 

[freetrader]

[doublepost=1542562576][/doublepost]@cypherdoc :

I can guess at an answer to your question. Right now the site's FAQ claims that

you can earn Bitcoin Cash (BCH) for creating good content, finding good content, and commenting on good content

I don't see how that is compatible with overt censorship.

 

[cypherdoc]

>I don't see how that is compatible with overt censorship.

i don't know Ryan's position on Yours. but if he's held it out as a private for-profit business, then i guess he can do whatever he wants with his site/business. i don't think censorship is right though for his business. otoh, severe disruption by trolls certainly would decrease his income.

it's definitely wrong for public places like r/bitcoin, BCT, and bitcoin.org which originally were held forth as free public open forums for general discussion for all. what pissed us all off was the rug was pulled out from under that after we had helped build those places to the popularity they had become and which no longer are.

 

[AdrianX]

ABC did not decide the outcome.

Whoever pushed through the ABC consensus rule changes decided the outcome.

I'll assert they are unqualified to lead Bitcoin Cash. Changes that promote adoption and growth should create value. If it is not obvious they should not be considered.

Forcing contentious changes when 70% of the BCH hashrate leading up to the Hard Fork did not support the changes was asking for a fight. The better way to fight the hashwar was to put your money where your mouth was before activating the changes. SV was forked off intentionally by fundamentally sticking to minority rule predefined consensus.

Value has been destroyed. The fighting is pointless you can no more win a war than win an earthquake. Confrontation creates a false reality, disdain is used to manipulate people much like fear and hate.

The people who win are the people who create value out of chaos. This is truer now more than ever, it's getting exponentially harder to build world money.

There are no valid contenders at this time, everyone is competing to be exclusive, I'm disappointed if you're a fundamentalist.