Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[RollieMe]

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

Unfortunately beyond my meager understanding to grok more than a small percent of it but just a heads up that I think you left out a link you intended to include:

The signatureScript can push other transactions onto the stack, as suggested by nChain (here), but doing so in a trustless fashion is problematic.

 

[79b79aa8]

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.

ABC+BU devs openly voting against what they conceive to be BU's interests was not enough for you?

 

[cypherdoc]

now that SV has been around for a short while, where are all the bloat/poison block attacks from the large Bitmain/bitcoin.com miners on a supposed vulnerable SV at 128MB? and don't give me lame arguments like SV isn't worth anything so it's not worth attacking. this is a hashwar and ABC wants to win badly and has committed all sorts of centralized dictatorial poorly thought out headless chicken coding moves already while SV is continuously chipping away at the entirety of ABC. so why not choke all the SV nodes that already have supposedly been proven by @Peter R as chokable? i had the same question just months ago when we were still one with BCH at 32MB. maybe it turns out that orphaning, financial incentives , miner soft limits, and natural network technical limitations really provide the true limit to what miners can or are willing to do as i've argued all along?

 

[AdrianX]

Speculation would be Calvin has a personal copy or material witness?

Or he's indited.

Occam's razor suggests it's not him. Calvin probably been skating on the edge of the law ever since he started his online gambling business. He is 57 years old and thriving. He's learned the hard way how strong the law can be and probably know the exact point when you overstep when money is involved. He got his T-shirt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Ayre#Criminal_charges

There is lots of inexperienced new money in this space, and lots of it very oppositional when it comes to the law. Look at Silbert promoting ICO's then Telling them to close shop and give the money back.

On that note ABC coin, if you want my support, show me you'll prioritize investors like me over changing the ABC app.

Everything I've told people about BCH just flew out the window.

All the ABC developers have interacted with me and dismissed my concerns, you need to change if you are going to recover. Prove to me you will prioritize growth and stability over "Protocol redefining".

FYI all optimizations can happen above the protocol layer until it can't, BU has been doing just that for years. That is how it should be done. If after 4 years of debate, it becomes evident that a protocol change is necessary lets talk. Until then I don't want to even hear from ABC.

 

[cypherdoc]

furthermore, look how SV itself is responding to it's own 128MB increase. if this report from @shadders about his Teranode are real, and there's exactly zero reason to believe it's not, voluntaryist dev platforms like XT, BU, ABC, et al got some explaining to do. as in, why haven't they been able to yet dev a similar Teranode? next, they'd answer, "but we ain't got no money and we got small blocks!". exactly. that's my point all along. b/c they ain't got no money and are hobbled/shielded with small 32MB limits, they got no incentive, energy, time, nor nothin to dev up such a super validating/relay node. welcome to the world of economic reasoning and competition.

 

[Richy_T]

Unless you meant that by switching to mine on the first seen block as soon as it validates, only gives advantage to SM for blocks that are found within 10 seconds. Yes that is the point of switching to the first seen block as soon as it validates.

It might make more sense to switch to mine on the larger block (not necessarily first seen) on the grounds that the smaller is likely to be selfish mining (assuming there is more than a small disparity).
[doublepost=1542905199][/doublepost]

Chatum rules is a gentleman's agreement. Not a contract, not a law.

Well, it is kind-of a contract. Along the lines of "If you break this agreement, you won't be welcome back". Of course, if the breaker is influential enough or communications have broken down anyway, that becomes much less of a threat.

 

[AdrianX]

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

I've go to LOL, sound money for the world has left me super suspicious of everyone. @freetrader your on that list too It's hilarious I never thought through all the things that would go wrong when it started to take off and I thought a lot. (in fact, I now think you could even be @Mengerian wife. (more important is we can disagree with each and above all remain respectful.) I think BU members consist of an optimal mix of opinions and intelligences.

Ironically as @solex has implied with the split and effective solo mining each chain, checks and balances have left the network.

The one assumption I made in 2011 that gave me confidence was knowing the developers had no control over the code as the early investors wouldn't follow changes.

I may have underestimated the influence of the majority who would join and influence development, and I lump miners in there too.

While SV is a choice if it was to stand on its own it could barely attract 1% of the SHA256 hash, so not much to celebrate.

I think in general BU with all of its fractured opinions is still the more viable path. The influential people in BU I feel have done a great job not forcing political opinions, the result speaks for themselves BU being compatible with all options on the table.

Congratulations to everyone involved on staying open to possibilities. I'm disappointed it's come to this.
[doublepost=1542907069,1542906329][/doublepost]

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

We have everything trolls and rude behaviour followed by remorse, spies, we even have the opposition as voting members. It's never appreciated until its gone.

Marriages take work. I'm not in favour of splitting anything. I love you all ;-)

 

[cypherdoc]

>checks and balanses have left the network.

SV IS the check on ABC. and i'm all for it snuffing out the ABC chain asap. this is a hashwar. then let the flood of honest big block miners into SV begin.

 

[bitsko]

I think there should be another ABC update in short order.

ABC is agile, open minded; should seriously consider adding replay protection.

The everyman simply needs replay and ABC has demonstrated a willingness to take action, its proponents being the ones who sought to split the coin, SV proponents wanting to keep it together.

One could only coach the everyman with success in selling their SV by adding replay, it is clearly a win-win.

ABC can continue to show its resilience in the face of the wither destined for the shorter chains that was built into bitcoin's incentive system.

Interesting that as ABC strives to contend with bitcoin as a minority- being accepting of the majority as it is(same miners w/short term profit motive) , it must do so by moving away from the incentive and structure built into bitcoin as it was intended to be.

The success of ABC now hinges upon it becoming something bitcoin will never be.

Not only would replay from ABC make the most sense, the groundwork is clearly being laid for work/stake hybrid, which ABC should be proud to champion as well.

Maybe we can even do masternodes, DASH has shown it is good for the pamp. As an ABC speculator, I would like to have muh bags pamped, please and thank you. In a multicoin world, a lil pamp is as good as its going to get.

 

[theZerg]

@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.

@Norway, I respect you greatly so please don't start using troll argument techniques like equating proposal A to a completely independent proposal B. My paper is about script, and what it can't do today. It is extremely relevant to anyone arguing (like Core did) that we should freeze the base protocol.

Additionally, I have never said that DSV was the only way to accomplish bets.

In fact in my original DSV proposal, I referenced the commitment technique that you wrote about (its been around for several years I think) so you certainly did not invent it and I certainly did not propose DSV as the only technique:

https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/bitcoin-scripting-applications-decision-based-spending-8e7b93d7bdb9

"To avoid the on-chain verification of this metadata, it would be possible for the oracle to create and pre-publish a unique pubkeyhash for every piece of data it will produce (in the next year, for example). But this solution seems awkward…"


I focused on oracle bets for DSV in my SV conf speech because it could directly affect adoption, and was appropriate for that audience.

 

[lunar]

@freetrader

Now we have BSV - Bigbrother's Surveillance Vision

I'm hoping to sidestep the banter for a bit, with some serious discussion.

These two statements from ZB align much with my recent thinking, and I wonder if it doesn't get down to the crux of the differences between the two camps.

The legal matter sort of blindsided me when I realized I had not updated on my old assumption that Bitcoin would be constantly hunted by govs; its conspicuous unscatchedness for all these years, and the reasons behind that, indicate that if we keep it in that nearly perfect state we can go much further before clashing with any governments. If we assume the legality ship has sailed already, it's an "in for an inch, in for a mile" dynamic, but here we find Bitcoin well known in the mainstream and no rumblings of any crackdowns. Quite the surprise it seems no one talks about.

I have been surprised to find, contrary to my initial ideas that Bitcoin was built with the expectation that it would always live in the crosshairs, that Bitcoin and script as a system seem carefully designed to avoid a host of pretty specific legal pitfalls, either coincidentally or by design. This assumption of basic incompatibility with government from the start, although never stated by Satoshi except as incompatibility with big government ("attractive to the libertarian point of view"), has informed many design ideas and may need to be reconsidered.

I believe Bitcoin was very carefully designed from the start. (satoshi paraphrased - much more effort went into design than implementation) I don't think it's a coincidence that it subtly threads itself through the worlds legal systems as Money (cash) it is appears exempt from nearly all the legal pitfalls of regular securities. In other words, there doesn't appear to be any legal precedent that can be used to shut it down. If so we surely would have seen attempts by now?

This leads into parallels with the telecom industry, or in ZB's example; software. Miners must be seen as independent bulk carriers, they simply transmit transactions, and have no further interaction. If they start enabling use cases that are considered illegal in most jurisdictions, such as on chain gambling or totally anonymous share/stock trading, It opens them up to a massive attack vector. Current laws on money are positively ancient. Such law is very hard for democratic governments to change, the legal precedent is just too overwhelming.

In other words pushing for code changes that enable illegal activity (however nice and anarchic they might seem) essentially passes the burden of liability from Developer to naive Miner.
Don't misunderstand here. I'm all for some of these use cases. The issue I have is if a developer wants to enable something that will be considered illegal, like gambling, then it is up to them to fight it out in court and take on the burden of their actions. I wish them luck and victory. To do so, they must keep it off chain, not recklessly risk everything, for the sake of a non-monetary use case, that effectively sticks a middle finger up at the worlds governments and exposes a massive new attack vector. Cryptocurrency is not unstoppable, believing it is, seriously underestimates the world we live in. Bitcoin is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

I'm ambling a little, but I'd like to touch on the anonymous aspect. Your flippant BSV acronym actually touches on a very serious topic. Do we want an anonymous coin? I see lots of people pushing for this, and suspect it might be Roger, Amaury and perhaps your main reason for supporting the ABC side. I don't believe it to be the best path forward. Government, (specifically corrupt government connected individuals) pretty much have god mode enabled on the world finance and surveillance systems.
We've all heard the reports "According to reports, a Londoner is likely caught on security camera over 300 times a day, which is the highest in UK; and an American citizen can be caught on camera more than 75 times per day!"

This is an unstoppable, increasing trend. Fact. Whether this info is in the hands of governments, corporations or well financed individuals irrelevant. It exists, can, and will be used.

Whats the solution? Anonymous coins, camo face masks, constant paranoia and bunker living? The alternative is total transparency, it's scary, especially when you don't trust governments to do the right thing. Yet here lies Bitcoins greatest potential. An end to corruption.

With a blockchain that is private, yet an open, public, ledger (not anonymous) all you need is an endpoint. (The bigger you are, the harder it will be to hide) Then instead of quivering in a bunker, scared of their governments, concerned citizens can use their skills to hunt down corrupt politicians/agencies/judges and have a full, legally admissible record or their crimes. Law then does what it's supposed to. Punish the thieves. It is not the individual that should be scared of surveillance (that's inevitable in our future) Rather it's hypocritical, corrupt, governments having a spotlight shone on their transgressions, by millions of angry people with cryptographically verifiable proof. Who would actually gain the most if we had anonymous coins?

The solution to darkness is light, not more darkness.

There are other problems with totally anonymous coins, but i've gone on long enough. Just consider how hard it would be for regular legally abiding businesses (the majority of the world) to do proper accounting? One side of the transaction already knows who they are, so true anonymity is a paradox. We need the ability to privately know who's on the other end, before we conduct business.

It's our right to choose who we deal with.

 

[lunar]

They Are Watching You—and Everything Else on the Planet

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/02/surveillance-watching-you/

 

[molecular]

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.

Mission accomplished: community divided and non-productively in-fighting. :-(

 

[go1111111]

Then instead of quivering in a bunker, scared of their governments

The path from here to freedom doesn't involve quivering or fear. Technology is allowing us to build a virtual world where freedom and privacy are embedded into the fabric of that world. With the right kind of tech innovation governments will simply be powerless to exert the same type of control over individuals that they've had for thousands of years.

concerned citizens can use their skills to hunt down corrupt politicians/agencies/judges and have a full, legally admissible record or their crimes. Law then does what it's supposed to. Punish the thieves.

The problem with this is that most of what government does that is bad is already out in the open. The laws, regulations, and taxes imposed in full view are extremely destructive and IMO unjust. These things are not getting implemented because of bribes or other obvious corruption. The fundamental incentives of the system are broken even without any corruption.

What specifically do you think you'll find with more government transparency that will actually change things? At best we'll just get cleaner politicians who continue to implement more of the same big government agenda.

There are other problems with totally anonymous coins, but i've gone on long enough. Just consider how hard it would be for regular legally abiding businesses (the majority of the world) to do proper accounting? One side of the transaction already knows who they are, so true anonymity is a paradox. We need the ability to privately know who's on the other end, before we conduct business.

If it's important for your business to know who your customers are, you can do KYC. There's a big difference between the two parties transacting knowing who each other are and the entire world knowing who they are.

 

[Zarathustra]

@lunar

Pseudo-anarchists believe that there is a human right to agitate on the internet with anonymous accounts. That's a ridiculous interpretation of anarchy.
It's just a question of time that exchanges will be forced to delist crypto currencies with that feature in the protocol. ABC seems to go that selfdestructive path, BSV doesn't.

 

[awemany]

@lunar

Pseudo-anarchists believe that there is a human right to agitate on the internet with anonymous accounts. That's a ridiculous interpretation of anarchy.

Thus spoke "Zarathustra".

It's just a question of time that exchanges will be forced to delist crypto currencies with that feature in the protocol. ABC seems to go that selfdestructive path, BSV doesn't.

What feature? CDS/-V? Or privacy in general?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Mission accomplished: community divided and non-productively in-fighting. :-(

Yes, unbelievably sad. I don't even think there was a mission. It just seems like a mix of ego, ignorance, stupidity and lack of empathy lead to a path of suicide.

Did you notice that there is a division between the "development side" and the "philosophical side"? I guess a general weakness of Bitcoin is that those two groups tend to not understand each other, but are required for successful cryptocurrencies, and that you only need a tiny injection of social engineering to split them. Core succeeded in keeping the two camps together by going all-in with "HODL" and "Decentralization" while pushing the vision of "Freeze the protocol but serve the whole world with Lightning" (which gives up another philosophical support, but most people did not realize it yet). ABC failed here completely, and the emerge of a populist powerhouse was enough to split it.

 

[freetrader]

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Diesen Spruch habe ich mir in den bösesten Stunden des Krieges in Erinnerung gerufen." - Erinnerungen von Ludwig v. Mises, p. 43

 

[molecular]

Did you notice that there is a division between the "development side" and the "philosophical side"? I guess a general weakness of Bitcoin is that those two groups tend to not understand each other, but are required for successful cryptocurrencies, and that you only need a tiny injection of social engineering to split them.

No I didn't notice that. I studied both computer science and philosophy. Guess that should make me pretty scizophrenic these days. Let me add that I didn't finish either of those studies with any degree (economic realities got in the way and my lazyness), so maybe that's why I don't feel exceptionally torn.

I don't see a huge "divide" anyway in terms of goals or paths. It's more of a power struggle, it seems. Or somehow 3rd-party-induced.

 

[theZerg]

furthermore, look how SV itself is responding to it's own 128MB increase. if this report from @shadders about his Teranode are real, and there's exactly zero reason to believe it's not, voluntaryist dev platforms like XT, BU, ABC, et al got some explaining to do. as in, why haven't they been able to yet dev a similar Teranode? next, they'd answer, "but we ain't got no money and we got small blocks!". exactly. that's my point all along. b/c they ain't got no money and are hobbled/shielded with small 32MB limits, they got no incentive, energy, time, nor nothin to dev up such a super validating/relay node. welcome to the world of economic reasoning and competition.

There are many many reasons to believe that its not real. nChain/CSW has a history of claiming but not delivering. This isn't a criticism of their development people... the team is relatively new and still ramping up.