Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Hm. I'm not really convinced this is a good or a bad idea..
But this is a consensus level change that shouldn't be done by a single implementation without coordination with other implementations.
Doesn't this introduce a chain split opportunity between ABC/BU/XT? Or am I missing something?

 

[BldSwtTrs]

At this point they just should change the hash function in their next release. Problem solved lol.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Finally, ABC innovates

Seriously: Can someone give me a precise reason why this is bad?

What will the SV supporters - including myself - in this thread do when ABC still has hashpower majority in 1 month? Will you stick to "no split" and "let hashpower decide" and celebrate this upgrade as the most expensive upgrade of all time? Or will you accept that our attempt of creating world money has split in two chains with a broken (BCH) or a terribly broken (SV) power balance?

 

[freetrader]

is CSW playing 4D chess? all his thunder and bluster about attacking ABC in various ways pre-fork. post-fork? absolutely nothing.

As usual

What did you expect following a conman?

Also, "absolutely nothing" is what any SV investments will almost certainly be worth in due time.

Enjoy the rest of your hash war.

 

[cypherdoc]

Hm. I'm not really convinced this is a good or a bad idea..
But this is a consensus level change that shouldn't be done by a single implementation without coordination with other implementations.
Doesn't this introduce a chain split opportunity between ABC/BU/XT? Or am I missing something?

the fact that you're not convinced after all the history I've given you, the dictatorial, centralized, and impulsive nature of how this just happened, and the attacks and chain splits this bullshit opens up is sad :

[doublepost=1542799741][/doublepost]@freetrader

>What did you expect following a conman?

at this point, I wouldn't expect anything other from you than you reducing this down to an adhom attack on CSW once again. sad that you can't simply follow ideas and action. at this point, the only chain that's acted responsibly is SV.

 

[cypherdoc]

The most reckless thing to do is give it to ABC.

https://medium.com/@withoutfear/fact-the-market-price-of-the-abc-bitcoin-cash-chain-is-zero-and-any-exchange-selling-it-as-bch-5a66f75320da

 

[8up]

Finally, ABC innovates

Seriously: Can someone give me a precise reason why this is bad?

What will the SV supporters - including myself - in this thread do when ABC still has hashpower majority in 1 month? Will you stick to "no split" and "let hashpower decide" and celebrate this upgrade as the most expensive upgrade of all time? Or will you accept that our attempt of creating world money has split in two chains with a broken (BCH) or a terribly broken (SV) power balance?

Some splits create value (BTC vs BCH) and some split eradicate value (ABC vs SV). It's the investors duty to figure out which one it is (ideally beforehand).

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Here's a good tweet


@freetrader happy to get rid of all those CSW-fans?

"They are only for SV because they got funded by nChain"

--> So, without nChain there would be not a single BCH-only company? And you really, really cheer that they leave the ecosystem? Because ... CSW!!!!

 

[cypherdoc]

Ryan revealed that his company got $1M from Bitmain and $500K from nchain.
[doublepost=1542802918][/doublepost]the paradox of @freetrader is that he can't see that what SV is trying to solve is exactly what he tried to solve when BCH forked from BTC; solve the blocksize limit.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I was just joking about arguments a la freetrader. Even IF he was true, it would just proof how much BCH has lost with purging nChain out.

 

[molecular]

Here is a polished graph of the sustained throughput on the BSV network during the stress tests. Despite the 64 MB and 38 MB blocks, sustained throughput was rarely above 10 MB per ten-minutes. The big blocks were made possible by producing them less frequently. 10 MB blocks every 10-minutes would have been more effective.

goddamnit, so we could've done 8 MB 3 years ago! This is great data! Someone please send this back in time.
[doublepost=1542803617][/doublepost]

the paradox of @freetrader is that he can't see that what SV is trying to solve is exactly what he tried to solve when BCH forked from BTC; solve the blocksize limit.

Isn't everyone trying to solve that? SV is trying the "head through wall" approach and managed to show it doesn't work: the wall is still standing at 10 MB. Meanwhile the others are working on some doors.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@molecular

There are different approaches to this. (1) Let's just do it, #reckless, get away with the blocksize limit and solve the problems underway with all the good engineering around, or (2) We can only allow a limit of the size our developers say is save.

I think what Cypherdoc means is that SV finally gets rid of (2), which was a long-term argument for Core to defend the 1mb limit.

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader happy to get rid of all those CSW-fans?

Perhaps .... (0.1% chance) you can be a CSW fan and still support Bitcoin Cash.
So I'm not happy to get rid of _all_ those CSW fans.

"They are only for SV because they got funded by nChain"

That's not my argument.
I have plenty of other explanations why people support SV.

--> So, without nChain there would be not a single BCH-only company? And you really, really cheer that they leave the ecosystem? Because ... CSW!!!!

I don't know about the validity of your argument here bro.

And I don't need to tell businesses which currencies they should or should not accept.
I'm not trying to create a NWO here.
I'm much happier with a free market, "currency competition" to keep people on their toes and counteract the massive concentrations of power that create so many problems.

Bitcoin is only ever going to become a *dominant* world currency, not *the single* world currency as some dumbshit maximalists believe.
[doublepost=1542808565,1542807915][/doublepost]

@molecular
There are different approaches to this. (1) Let's just do it, #reckless, get away with the blocksize limit and solve the problems underway with all the good engineering around, or (2) We can only allow a limit of the size our developers say is save.

Don't know why you've left out
(3) dynamic algorithms to adjust the cap

when this has been discussed so long.

Oh, but for a false dichotomy you need only 2 options.

 

[sgbett]

Doesn't that make the Selfish Mining algorithm (Eyal, Sirer) much more effective? In other words, if mining nodes use || validation, and they start mining on the first to validate block, and then they don't switch over to mining on the first seen block when it is done, then it increases the ability of a SM to win a block race.

@Peter R is this handled properly in the BU code? Switch over to first seen block when it is done validating? Thoughts?

I think the counterpoint to that, is that the miner should aim to create a block (size/complexity/validation time) suited to their risk profile with regards being orphaned vs increased revenue. The main point being that it is up to the miner to self-limit, in an unbounded environment.

 

[cypherdoc]

as some dumbshit maximalists believe.

well there you have it. we do indeed have very different visions of what Bitcoin should be and what it can accomplish. out of curiosity, how many altcoins do you authorize? 5,10,20,50,1000?

 

[wrstuv31]

I don't know about the validity of your argument here bro.

And I don't need to tell businesses which currencies they should or should not accept.
I'm not trying to create a NWO here.
I'm much happier with a free market, "currency competition" to keep people on their toes and counteract the massive concentrations of power that create so many problems.

Bitcoin is only ever going to become a *dominant* world currency, not *the single* world currency as some dumbshit maximalists believe.

Genuine question. Why not support Dash then?

They are much further ahead on this vision of a centrally managed payment database.

 

[cypherdoc]

I knew this thread was invested with Multicoiners, but as I suspected, they cloaked themselves as if they were maximalists.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

If it was for this, you could just used LTC or Dash instead of forking Bitcoin. Maximalism is the ONLY reason BCH has ever been relevant.

 

[Zarathustra]

I guess BU is not compatible with ABC anymore.

We will implement it. We are followers. And masochists.
[doublepost=1542815217,1542814077][/doublepost]

Some splits create value (BTC vs BCH) and some split eradicate value (ABC vs SV). It's the investors duty to figure out which one it is (ideally beforehand).

I think the BTC/BCH fork created only short time value.
It is getting more and more obvious that the BTC miners' cowardly non-defense of Bitcoin (Unlimited) leads into disaster where the competing chains on the same hashing algo need Rube-Goldberg protection against each other.

 

[freetrader]

Protecting Bitcoin as "peer to peer electronic cash" from destruction via Segwit does not make one a dumbshit maximalist.

I can live with the fact that it now has a deformed sibling. Or ten. They're not forcing me to use their BTC, LTC, DASH, BSV etc. (*)

Or are they? (looks around in this thread)

Have you all got your Jerry French maximalist ID cards?
Otherwise I'm going to assume you're all lying multicoiners.

(*) Not much against DASH btw, the rest I consider crap