Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
ABC is not blacklisting the shotgun txs. that's just false
Looks like it's just an interpretation issue, ABC miners who by association are dictating the ABC ruleset are.

Truth is relative. I'm always disappointed when I see people resort to technical fundamentals and overlook the forest for the trees.

Money is a social network that is inclusive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lunar and Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Absolute weird behavior of Ryan X Charles.

Makes me think if there is much more behind nChain than I suspected..

Who or whatever is behind this uses a lot from the same playbook they used for bitcoin before.
let's not go overboard. blaming nChain for Ryan's actions is spreading FUD. i'm sure Ryan would deny any connection for his actions.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Anarchists are fools
Craig S. Wright July, 11th, 2018.
Anarchists checking in. I can confirm from my the perspective as an Anarchists, CSW is correct, He's just rounding to the nearest fundamental.

FYI it does not matter what he thinks. Most fundamentalists are fools.
[doublepost=1542570215,1542569316][/doublepost]
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.
Winning is many things it's about keeping a positive mindset. If CSW is doing what I think he is doing there are no losses. There is just energy being spent and value moving from one place to another. The rules of the game are not defined, you win when you stay in the game.

ABC by this definition is also winningat the same time CSW is winning, everyone is winning. You stop winning when someone stops playing. ABC miners are moving value from one place to another. https://fork.lol/reward/dari/btc the smart investors have found a way to skim profits of that value shift.

IE. you can profit from CSW's disdain. Given CSW's behaviour, I imagine he is winning too.
 
Last edited:
This is so wrong, on so many layers, it's inbelievable.

For example, the interview of Donton with CSW on keyport.tv. Donton wants miners to be distributed. CSW explains him - surprisingly polite - that you need at least three miners to be distributed enough to be competitive.

BCH had three large mining entities which are interested in BCH. With the fork Bitmain and Bitcoin-com purged out CoinGeek / nChain. They broke Balance of power in the name of keeping mining distributed.

That's just one of so many things that are wrong.

Or look at the things which made BCH interesting: Yours, Memo, Stresstests, BCH-only wallets like Handcash, Crytonize standing the double spend, this good old thread, flippening maximalists like Daniel, and so many things more ... not all, but most are closer to SV than ABC. While ABC is strongly supported by exchanges, which don't give a shit about BCH, but just want to treat it like any other altcoin, behaving to the rules they make ...

What's the difference between a Shitcoin and a real Coin? Having people and projects caring only about your coin. BCH spite out a lot of them.
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in

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

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

I don't see how that is compatible with overt censorship.
I applaud the honesty. Did you split your yours coins by any chance and try to pollute Ryan's efforts to maintain unified coin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
BCH had three large mining entities which are interested in BCH. With the fork Bitmain and Bitcoin-com purged out CoinGeek / nChain. They broke Balance of power in the name of keeping mining distributed.
Eh, what?

CoinGeek / nChain announced through the Faketoshi medium that they are willing to do attacks on the BCH chain. CoinGeek and nChain had all options to continue on mining BCH with the upgraded ruleset. Instead, they forked off and created their own coin with minority hash power (relative to BCH). And didn't get attacked. Fair play by all sides (so far).

You wanted hash power to decide this. You got hash power deciding this.
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
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).
lining up to decry silencing a kid who makes violent threats and exploit the website he lost 'dozens of dollars' on should make you feel embarrased.

watching ABC fan after ABC fan (soupernerd, looking at you) take a 'stand' for that wanker is nauseating.

Im excited to see what Ryan comes up with next, Im greatful for your prior contributions, and sick of seeing you type BCH, when it is really just ABC Core. BCH is on life support, if not dead already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway
Eh, what?

CoinGeek / nChain announced through the Faketoshi medium that they are willing to do attacks on the BCH chain. CoinGeek and nChain had all options to continue on mining BCH with the upgraded ruleset. Instead, they forked off and created their own coin with minority hash power (relative to BCH). And didn't get attacked. Fair play by all sides (so far).

You wanted hash power to decide this. You got hash power deciding this.
It's useless to discuss whose fault the current situation is. I made this with a NO2x supporter for month, and we still not agree whose fault the split of Bitcoin was.

Before the fork we had three large mining entities that really cared about the future of BCH. Now we are left with two ... and BSV propaganda machines working against BCH instead of BTC.

I expected the parties which are used to act rationaly to again act rationaly enough to prevent such an outcome. Maybe I missed that it's a heavy asset for Bitmain's books to demonstrate control over a major blockchain ...
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Interesting language.
Not really. Calvin was under the impression that the load from Satoshi's Shotgun would prevent BU/ABC miners from mining:

[doublepost=1542577660,1542576744][/doublepost]
@Peter R
I see you're a part of the tickergrabbers as well.
That's because the hash war is over and the SV side lost.

But really, I don't think we actually had a hash war. We just had a regular chain split. I was under the impression that the SV side was going to try to prevent a split. One way they could have done this was by mining blocks that were acceptable to both ABC and SV, but trying to orphan blocks that were not acceptable to SV. This way -- if they had sufficient hash power -- they could have bled the ABC-loyal hash power until that hash power abandoned the protocol upgrade.

What was with all the "there will be no split" rhetoric? Was it just talk? Or was it another case where CSW's understanding of bitcoin was so poor that he actually thought he could prevent a split by causing a split?
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
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.
@Zangelbert Bingledack

Although there's no block explorer for me to calculate precisely, it seems the highest sustained throughput (60 min average) was about 25 MB x 6 = 150 MB on the BSV chain.

Interestingly, CSW is now saying that the 128 MB blocks are "coming soon" instead, as though the plan was never to produce 128 MB blocks on the November 17th Stress Test.

That said, it would no longer surprise me if they are able to generate a series of 128 MB blocks. I was playing close attention during the stress test: the SV nodes running the public software bogged down and ran slow. The SV miners were certainly not running the code that's in the Github repository.

@jtoomim noticed that SV pool would post new work for the next block approximately 2 minutes before the nodes running normal SV would connect the latest block to the chain tip. It would thus appear that SV, Coingeek and friends were connected with some sort of fast relay network, or were using a pre-consensus algorithm to improve block propagation between each other.

It's not a bad thing in itself to connect to other miners with a fast relay network, but with a 2 minute head start, a new SV miner who was not part of their private relay network would be at a strong disadvantage. The orphan rate for the miners with the 2-minute lag would be approximately e^(2/10) - 1 = 22%, while the miners with access to the private relay network would be close to 0.

This was not correct. Better analysis suggests the fast-relay hypothesis is false.
 
Last edited:

Golarz Filip

New Member
Dec 22, 2015
11
52
Hi guys, this is my first post here.

I'm lurker of this thread since late 2015, right after XT fiasco. I follow you closely since then.

I was introduced to Bitcoin somewhere in 2011, and around 2013 I finally read the white paper and it clicked right away. Since then I pushed myself to understand the implications of Bitcoin in context of global sound money and decentralised governance.

I was always BU fan as the miners choice, and was happy to see the majority of miners voting for BU in 2017. And then the fork happens and I finally accepted the split, mainly because of no other way to maintain the chain free of SegWit and RBF (and also Core devs).

And here we are in BCH hash war.

I always tried to see the Bitcoin phenomenon long term, observing it from 3rd person perspective, and try to understand the implications in 10, maybe 20 years, what is the upper limit of my rational imagination can go :)

I see it as infinite game that CSW, Roger, Jihan and other miners along with market ecosystem are playing in.

What I didn't expect early is the social media propaganda that affected the path of the bitcoin idea. It even affects me. I'm not sure I'm emotionally impartial because of this.

So let's see what's my current opinion of all of this.

I dislike IP patents, and I see CSW as egomaniac, socially handicapped person with totalitarian attitude. On the other hand I see Aumary as somebody pushing for social consensus, fighting for BCH as hes own property, more or less, fighting for rules not widely accepted (at least not by BU voters).

And as far as I don't like Craig and his bullshit, I realised that SV implementation philosophy is more close to my understanding of what Bitcoin should be.

Just my 2 satoshis.
 
Last edited: