Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

>It means that I think anyone who believes there will be just one world currency, and that currency will be Bitcoin, is a dumbshit.

@freetrader can we parse this?

does this mean you don't believe there will be a future world reserve currency like we have now with the dollar?

when you say "Bitcoin" do you include BTC and all its derivatives like BCH, ABC, SV, and all the altcoins?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

If that's true, why did Coingeek seem so happy about Greg supporting SV? https://coingeek.com/former-blockstream-cto-gregory-maxwell-sees-light/. Is Coingeek secretly trying to damage SV?

Why did CSW leak the email? I guess he wants to damage SV too?

I guess because they want to have this quote publically available to weaponize it when needed:

If I might be so bold as to point out: Since OP_DSV is almost line by line equivalent to CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY published in the elements sidechain in May 2015, if anyone had any direct IPR on this operation it would be Blockstream.

Given the history / transformation of Andrew's original proposal into DSV, and the fact that noone bothered to revisited Blockstream's patent policy before implementing it, this seems weird and reckless.

When Blockstream initially published their patent policy, "we big blockers" have been immediately sceptical if there was some kind of legal backdoor, like when Blockstream gets sold and so on. Now we just trust them, after ABC kicked Andrew's original proposal last minute to only implement the Blockstream version?

Having this information publicly available and confirmed by Maxwell could at least be weaponized to spread fear and to further alienate BU and ABC.

The more interesting question is, why did Maxwell felt the need to advise CSW?

Maybe because of this:

I believe it would be adverse for interests that concern me if your influence or prominence in BCH were in any way diminished. I am not aware of how I could be of aid in repairing this situation, but it seemed to me that it would be prudent to at least offer my discreet assistance.

 

[freetrader]

will be called Bitcoin - or resemble Bitcoin v0.1

I edited my post a bit to clarify while you were writing your response.

I do indeed view "Bitcoin" as a tree with many branches, some of which give up fundamental aspects of monetary soundness and will imo be pruned / fall away by the action of the market, as most will.

Some may deliver good and necessary improvements or vital course corrections (like massive on chain scaling pursued in the Bitcoin Cash branch). Such branches may come to replace the main branch over time by gaining the value and most-proof-of-work-put-in over time.
This is where the branch analogy probably breaks down and these so-called "altcoins" can be like seeds that can carry and sprout to bring peer to peer electronic cash to people, even if what the masses know as "Bitcoin" dies. Which is not to say it will -- it might linger around longer than any of us will ever experience.

future world reserve currency like we have now with the dollar?

Sorry to say this, but this pre-supposes a world with power structures like we have them today. Around us the old order is crumbling like a dam with holes, about to break.
I believe with sound money as introduced by the Bitcoin idea our human civilization has a chance to take a very different trajectory, one that might not require such a "world reserve currency". But perhaps one will arise naturally in the form of the dominant cryptocurrency of the day.

 

[cypherdoc]

so do you or don't you believe in maximalism? I hate that term btw, because it brings up visions for me of some sort of stupid muscle man smashing all the China in the room.

what I mean by maximalism is a dominant world, yes reserve (because we can never get rid of gvt completely) , currency that controls market share of ~>95%. as I said earlier, for me to believe that I need to support hashwar, imo, especially since that is not a new term or concept as I've demonstrated from our early btc history.which I don't believe is force also. it's competition.

 

[bitsko]

if the weak subjectivity of proof of ten wasnt enough wait until you see the pre pre preconsensus of avalanche in ABC lolol what a fucking tragedy.

I still think there is a market for medium blocks in the short term, lucky me as gresham will have me spending it.

 

[bitsko]

happy to see that you are willing to take a stand against the countless lefties that flooded your thread @cypherdoc. check this one out:

“The Ver Attack: The Biggest Vulnerability in Bitcoin?” by Saito Official https://link.medium.com/J574AFJu8R

 

[awemany]

Section 10 is about privacy. Do you think anonymity, privacy and pseudonymity are identical?
ABC's devil wrote an article about the differences.

And how do you achieve any privacy without allowing for anonymity as well?

I am interested in your view, not the ABC devil's one (whoever that is) on this.

 

[bitsko]

anonymity on the internet is in fact a pipe dream for more than rare, incredibly difficult circumstances.

problem being, the real world continues to exist and the individual continues to be inside of said real world.

 

[lunar]

@go1111111

You want to buy socks from me with an anonymous coin. I care about knowing who my users are for some reason. I say "I refuse to sell you socks until you show me your passport and send me some selfies."

You either refuse in which case you get no socks, or you comply and I send you a deposit address.

Because the coin is anonymous I don't know any of your other purchases, and no one else other than me and you know that you bought socks from me. But I do know who you are because this was part of our voluntary agreement.

I'm not sure we are using the same definition of terms. Privacy and anonymity are different things. If all you want is to keep your other transactions unknown to someone then that is privacy. Anonymity would be that you couldn't prove your other transactions even if you wanted to. (There would be no way to trace back to you, by definition)

This makes KYC on an anonymous coin a paradox. You need to be able to prove a negative. Apart from everything else, just because it's a more valuable outcome

Let's take it up a notch from socks. What if I was running a children's charity, and we accepted donations, but wanted to make sure no donation was from a source we deemed un-ethical. We do KYC on all donators and provide a deposit address for their annoycoin. Now someone criminal deposits into this address but the person who has KYC linked to it, can in no way to prove it was them or not them. Who made the deposit? Illegal funds have now been accepted without our consent.

With privacy we control who has access to our information, with anonymity we there is no connection.

I'd go so far as to say anonymity enables crime and privacy enables freedom of choice with legitimate commerce.

 

[awemany]

anonymity on the internet is in fact a pipe dream for more than rare, incredibly difficult circumstances.

problem being, the real world continues to exist and the individual continues to be inside of said real world.

I am well aware of the sorry state of privacy. But that is a non-answer in this context. @Zarathustra has posed anonymity as not desirable.

Yet, Satoshi's vision evidently included the idea of privacy being desirable. Therefore I like to know how preventing anonymity can be made congruent with allowing privacy at the same time.

I am all ears.

@lunar:

Anonymity would be that you couldn't prove your other transactions even if you wanted to. (There would be no way to trace back to you, by definition)

This makes KYC on an anonymous coin a paradox. You need to be able to prove a negative.

CoinJoin is a thing.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

BIP47 actually solves a lot of the above problems.

 

[cypherdoc]

ABC/BTC collapsing. SV UP.

 

[lunar]

Scary chart of the year, competition winner. 30day BTC

 

[cypherdoc]

oh my. poor 95%'ers:

 

[Zarathustra]

ABC/BTC collapsing. SV UP.

Steeper than vertical is not possible ...

https://coinlib.io/coin/BCHSV/Bitcoin+Cash+SV+[IOU]

 

[lunar]

CoinJoin is a thing.

Goalpost move. The conversation was about enabling anonymity within the chain. If we want to keep Bitcoin out of the way of the worlds lawyers, the protocol and miners need to remain neutral. Coinjoin is great, i'm all for it. The difference is that the developers are at danger here, and companies that promote it. Not the miners and the blockchain itself.

 

[awemany]

Goalpost move. The conversation was about enabling anonymity within the chain. If we want to keep Bitcoin out of the way of the worlds lawyers, the protocol and miners need to remain neutral. Coinjoin is great, i'm all for it. The difference is that the developers are at danger here, and companies that promote it. Not the miners and the blockchain itself.

No, it is not a goal post move. But maybe we're about to clarify terms here: I have not talked about mandatory anonymity, just anonymity being possible. And again, I fail to see how you can separate that from the goal of privacy.

Or fungibility even, for that matter.

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[awemany]

@Zarathustra: Ok. So we're finally on the same level as that of Core trolls now in this thread?

What an interesting development.

 

[wrstuv31]

Therefore I like to know how preventing anonymity can be made congruent with allowing privacy at the same time.

I am all ears.

I hope this is a genuine concern, because I think a bridge can be built here.

Assuming a Bitcoin at scale (TB blocks) with tons of low value transactions, and minimal address reuse. People are private on Bitcoin because it is not economical to comb through and figure out who is who. It's simply not worth the cost. This is what keeps your actions from being observed, however it does not mean that they are not observable or anonymous. If someone wants to spend a bunch of money/talent to go through the blockchain and figure it out they can, so you are not anonymous. I'm sure there are other solutions, but this is one way you can make preventing anonymity congruent with allowing privacy, introduce a cost function.

There are more basic ways, like a state run mixing service. I guess if you base your actions on your philosophies then a state run service could be abhorrent, but most people don't share that character trait, so i don't see it as a threat to a usable currency.

I don't see why an organization would want to have dealings with an anonymous money supply, unless they too deal with anonymous customers and have no stake in their customers actions. An organization that relies on a localized community to function, would want to know who is buying/using their products. I'm not sure why they would want to share a money supply with people who are anonymous either, but I'm open to hear ideas there.