Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[RollieMe]

That leads me to a question I had. A lot of people dismiss everything coming out of the nChain camp as bullshit and maybe with some cause however @shadders at least strikes me as a straight shooter. My question is in reference to the below posts by him indicating that the first prototype of Teranode has come online. I'm just wondering what the "openness" of the teranode tech will be - ie will competitors be able to buy it/license it? If not, and it proves to be capable of processing huge blocks then it would kind of cement the solo-mining problem on the SV chain - well solo-faction at least anyway. (I understand there would be a lot of skepticism to the claims and no doubt a lot of people think SV is doomed in the mid term but I'm curious about the what-ifs.)


And this:

The Teranode (or at least the prototypical first iteration) is born. And it's growing fast. The core validation remains in bitcoin-sv so there is no danger of consensus fuckups. But the real perfomance hurdles are being addresses in ways no other implementation team has ever tried. I've been frustrated for the last year that I've been too busy organising dev teams to actually write any code myself but Teranode is my baby and at long last I've had a chance to start coding myself. Then next iteration or Teranode is "coming soon" (tm)... And when it comes we'll shake some foundations. Don't expect loud announcements... You'll just see bigger blocks. The one thing I've learned in recent months is that social media doesn't matter. It's just results that matter. So I will ignore it and just get on with the job as I usually do (except when I get a bit tipsy and go on a twitter rampage )...

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/9yyamr/news_from_the_trenches/

 

[freetrader]

People accuse CSW for taking control over the protocol. But it's actually the opposite. By freezing the protocol, control is removed from the single point of failiure, the developers.

99.9% of the developers have good intentions. But they should be competing client developers, not cooperating protocol developers.

I understand that it's almost impossible to see that you are a part of the problem when all you do is working hard to improve bitcoin. But I think this is the reason why it seems to be a blurry divide among BU members between developers/admins and investors/leechers.

This reads somewhat like Norway's account has been taken over by someone.

 

[sgbett]

Ah, the old “appeal to this person’s account having been taken over” fallacy.

Good one!

 

[freetrader]

I'm just giving my opinion, having read this thread since I joined.
It doesn't read like Norway's writing style to me.

Why did you never apply to be a BU member, @sgbett ?

 

[sgbett]

Pretty sure I did back in the day... but when I checked I wasn't so I figured I must have done something wrong.

Why you ask? You don't want me. I'd be a rubbish member, with my outlandish ideas about OP_CDSV and stuff

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I'm just giving my opinion, having read this thread since I joined.
It doesn't read like Norway's writing style to me.

Why did you never apply to be a BU member, @sgbett ?

WTF? Really, freetrader, take a rest. What Norways says is 100% compatible with what he is writing since long. 100%.

While you ... a few weeks ago we had reasonable talks, but now, your hate on CSW / nChain seems to have eliminated every single other reasonating thought inside you brain.

 

[Norway]

This reads somewhat like Norway's account has been taken over by someone.

Yes, it's true. And I hodl a shotgun to his head wright now. Send 22 million bitcoin (BSV) to $ProfFaustus or he's gone, I don't give a rat's rectum. Finance. Competition.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

While I am pretty sure, that some accounts have been bought I'd agree that @Norway seems to be consistent...
Well, he cared a lot about Gavin's opinion in the past, who now seems to be replaced by the conman CSW. But apart from that, I'd say it's consistent.. just imho brain washed. (Sorry, @Norway I think you want(ed) the right thing but fell into a trap.. I just hope for you, that you didn't go full Norway on BSV..).

Maybe it's time to split the GCBU thread into two, one for BCH and one for BCSW?

 

[solex]

@sgbett
You joined BU in 2016, but stopped voting for over 1 year, which caused your membership to lapse. This is a participatory organization, so willingness to vote is needed. If you wish to rejoin then please post a message in the membership thread.

 

[Norway]

I just hope for you, that you didn't go full Norway on BSV..

You want me to pump your shitcoin?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

One thing the hashwar has done is obliterate decentralized mining on BCH. That was evolving nicely and by its first anniversary, on 1 August 2018, there was a good mix of different miners competing, coming and going depending upon the prevailing profitability against BTC. I recall a reddit post that BCH mining was looking more decentralized than BTC. This was a massive achievement by the ABC team and vindicated pushing through the early difficult days after the spinoff.
Truly decentralized mining is one of the best measures of a successful cryptocurrency.

Less than 3 months later, after a ridiculous diplomatic and political breakdown between ABC and CSW/Coingeek, both forks of BCH are being effectively solo-mined, and all trust by holders and users must be again be given to the miner on each side to not make a corporate decision to move elsewhere. This state of affairs lasted very briefly after BCH was first launched, because the EDA ensured that any other miner could quickly look for profit where the onchain-scaling community and market existed.

Today there is no end in sight to the dependence on solo-miners, so no wonder the aggregate BCH forks value is under pressure, today about 0.06 of BTC. It amazes me how the Bitcoin SV supporters seem to be fine with 100% solo-mining control way into the future.

On the other side, ABC have abandoned multi-development team consensus in their latest releases, which increasingly look like smart-thinking degenerating into panicked thinking. It would not surprise me if another release appears very soon, and that really would be a headless chicken moment.

Since activity in this threads hides this great post from Solex under a lot of worse posts, I want to quote it. Great post, Solex, reasonable like always! I agree with almost everything you wrote.

The outcome of this was absolutely predictable - I did weeks, if not month before the split - and it is a fundamental, untoppable failure of leadership. I can't applaud BU developers @theZerg and @sickpig and all enough about their attempt to find a solution for compromise, and I can't say enough how disappointed I am in ABC AND SV that they both decided for a split. Now we are here, and everybody has to pick a side, has to trust in entities that acted absolutely recklessly, and this splits the BU community too ...

A few notes:
- The decentralization of BCH mining was mostly a merit of CoinGeek. You don't need to be a grandmaster in rubic-cubing to compute that forking against them will kill one of the greatest achievements of BCH.
- ABC did abandon multi-development team consensus not just during fork wars - which would be, partly, excusable - but with the release of the forking client including CTOR, which was opposed by developers of nearly every other team.

 

[cypherdoc]

Ok, since personal account conspiracy theories appear to be full tilt today initiated by @freetrader, how about this one about him that's been bugging me ever since he's been in personal attack mode?:

the other day I drew a comparison between CSW and what @freetrader had done in forking chains to solve the blocksize limit. the less charitable way to look at their similarities would be to look at them from the same way he's framed CSW. what if they're both gvt saboteurs playing a long con who are just trying to divide our communities using forks as a primary strategy to the detriment of Bitcoin? and I've always thought it strange he's wanted to stay anonymous and uninvolved with ABC while letting amaury take all the credit especially when his opinion of him has flip flopped a few times maybe further sewing division? his name strikes the perfect libertarian cord too, maybe to disarm us all? see? we all can play this game.

 

[wrstuv31]

It amazes me how the Bitcoin SV supporters seem to be fine with 100% solo-mining control way into the future.

It's amazing because you made it up to amaze yourself.

 

[cypherdoc]

I thought I already explained that one? if SV wins going far into the future (they only win if they can snuff out ABC, imo), then a plethora of competing miners would surely flood into the SV space.

 

[Norway]

ABC did abandon multi-development team consensus

It's hard to blame them for this.

BU is well organized. We have money, rules, open debate, an administrative unit and - most important - a voting system making it possible to make decissions and execute.

Even with all this in place, we can't avoid politics, bargaining and mistakes.

The magical "developer consensus" between different dev groups is a jungle compared to this. There is no way to assign votes other than perceived miner support. In other words, it's very vague and prone to power play.

I don't believe the solution to this is to get more organized like Haipo suggested. It will only turn into a corrupt organization like the IOC times 21 million with all the money at stake.

Let's not build a single point of failiure. The solution is to freeze the protocol and remove the limits. Develop the best client, not the protocol.

 

[freetrader]

hen a plethora of competing miners would surely flood into the SV space.

Keep snuffing that hopium, @cypherdoc

 

[cypherdoc]

I was merely going along with @solex's amazement.

 

[theZerg]

...
Let's not build a single point of failiure. The solution is to freeze the protocol and remove the limits. Develop the best client, not the protocol.

Norway, I think that the problem is that there's a gap between they reality and the hype. Due to all the "blue sky" type speeches, I think that many people think that a frozen blockchain will be more capable of a lot more than it really is, if we just apply a bit of L2 engineering.

I think that it's time to wipe that crap away, so that people really understand what we have.

https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/why-bitcoin-cash-script-is-nearly-useless-and-what-to-do-about-it-b47adbfeceec

 

[cypherdoc]

in general, i'd be willing to believe that. but just to show that i've been consistent over the years in my arguments, i'd argue to still remove/solve the biggest problem in Bitcoin first by either removing the limit or conceiving a bullet proof adaptive algo. once that's done, attempt to add all sorts of value/optimizations to improve propagation/validation/script and see if the market agrees to add them. it's the very same argument i've made against Core and offchain/LN solutions in the presence of the 1MB crippling. permanently solve the big argument debate over blocksize first then dev away other things.

 

[Norway]

@theZerg
- Your article is about script. Not scalability. We're making world money.
- I didn't read the whole article now, and I may not be qualified to evaluate it. But I know it was easy, even for me, to "invent" a way to do your favourite usecase for dsv, oracle bets without the oracle knowing about the bet, with the current script in a simple and compact format.