Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Christoph Bergmann
Which basic properties have been touched by the latest hardfork?

"The core design" was set in stone IIRC. And the core design hasn't been changed at all.

This is like arguing with BTC core proponents all over again. "You cannot touch the 1 MB limit it's one of Bitcoins properties and hardforks are evil".

 

[freetrader]

Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to the crazy-ass changes proposed by nChain.

Like

• changing the recent arithmetic opcodes again next May (they even wanted BU support on that)
• deprecating P2SH
• blacklisting outputs which didn't appeal to them based on people splitting their ABC / SV

I know I must have forgotten a few points, but the list is honestly long enough for me to laugh at anyone calling their proposition "stable money".

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

This is like arguing with BTC core proponents all over again. "You cannot touch the 1 MB limit it's one of Bitcoins properties and hardforks are evil".

The 1mb limit was a fundamental problem to scale adoption of Bitcoin. TTOR is not.

It's crazy how fast BCH has switched from "We must lift the blocksize" to "we must rebuild many things" . It's also crazy how fast BCH switched from "After no result from 2 years of discussion we go our own way" to "if you don't agree after two month of discussion, go your own way."

 

[8up]

That sounds a lot like religion. Extremists on all sides feel an urge for blood lust!? Fighting over the one and only true meaning of THE word.

Good principals and values deserve to be set in stone but they don't need too(!!!) because they are universal. Everything else has to adapt or will be decayed by time.

The more I look into the thought leaders of all the different crypto sub-communities, the more I feel Bitcoin (and all its descendants) represent a failed project. Not because they are technologically and economically diverse and still somehow successful. But because the communities and thought leaders lack a logical philosophical foundation.

Splitting a chain is a feature. It can "set you free from the chains" and is the digital equivalent of meaningful voting and free speech.

The world is uncertain as long as your a living. If you choose certainty you choose death.

Network effects are in constant change. They are not eternal. (Myspace>Facebook>...).

To me it seems many of the thought leaders in here have lost common (logical) sense giving up their individuality in order to build militia with like minded warriors to argue over things that don't really matter in the long run.

Maybe it's (just) me who has lost touch with the community(ies) after 8 interesting years.

 

[Norway]

You are putting words in my mouth. I said it didn't read like Norway's writing to me. That's not the same as saying his account was hacked. If you can't think of at least two reasons how this can happen, I am more than happy to help you out.

Please stop projecting on me.

 

[molecular]

@Christoph Bergmann

That's not fair. Like it was not fair from @freetrader to accuse @Norway of being hacked. There are a lot of reasons to fundamentally prefer SV over ABC.

This definitely came across wrong and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to accuse anyone (and I don't think I did), it was just an honest worry of mine based on my inability to understand his position regarding blocksize limit removal. I also have no problem accepting other peoples positions. This seems to have come across wrong also. Again I apologize.

I'm trying to understand and learn. I haven't really made up my mind yet about a lot of things currently on the table. So I'm having a hard time placing your

I accept it that you don't agree with me

when I don't even know wether I disagree with you.

Edit: Just for a thought play. Imagine you had to chose in August 2017 which project you support: Lifting the blocksize to 128mb, reintroducing old op_codes and freeze the protocol - or lifting the blocksize to 32mb and start half-yearly hardforks to fundamentally change the system until a group of developers says it is ok now.

Neither, I would've started a discussion. And had I been told to "fuck off" and that "my money wasn't needed" my decision would've been clear.

I'm not in blind agreement with the decisions ABC team made and I also have my problems with the bi-annual forks and general governance processes. It's still less problematic than what I see with SV.

 

[go1111111]

You are ready to bet on something that has twice the value right now?
Incredibly fair offer.

I’m willing to give odds, but 1:10 seems pretty steep. I was seeing a lot of confidence from cypherdoc about how the momentum was swinging. I wonder if he also thinks there’s less than a 10% chance that SV will be worth more than ABC in 3 months.

What’s your probability estimate that SV overtakes ABC in price at any point in the future?

What’s your probability estimate that SV overtakes ABC in price before 2020?

 

[Norway]

I can see how the SV "idea" (no changes, back to 0.1, pure sound money, no bullshit) is right down your alley, but I fail to see how you can get behind the surrounding circumstances, especially regarding expected governance mode, communication with companies, community, etc... of that coin.

Hey @molecular!
I highlighted the the text expected governance mode because this is, in my view, very important.

ABC vs SV is not about ABC devs (+BU, XT?) rule the protocol vs SV rule the protocol.

It is about ABC devs (+BU, XT?) rule the protocol vs nobody rule the protocol.

By freezing the protocol, you remove power from centralized developers, the single point of failiure. As extra bonuses, you get a stable long term protocol companies can build on and a stable chain that doesn't split.

Regarding script: By getting bignum back and removal of script limits (as SV will do ASAP), bitcoin script will be low level, but very powerful. High level language compilers and interpreters can be built on top, outside of the blockchain, making it easy for even front end coders to use it.

This is a vision I share.

 

[8up]

@Norway

The price for Bitcoin is eternal vigilance. I don't think that an ossified protocol helps here. I could say the same about BTC. And I acknowledge that making (too many) unwise changes will definitely cripple any project.

Unwise = partial interest (rent seeking) over common interest (encouraging competition/equal conditions). In that sense I think ossifying the protocol is an anti-competition move and it's as useless as BTC's 1M limit which simply blinds out all the other competing chains referring to them as "scams" thanks to maximalism ideology.

That said I'm neutral regarding both BCH versions.

 

[Norway]

@Peter R has been pwned:

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/why-i-troll-5304f2cbbfc3
[doublepost=1543239173][/doublepost]

@Norway

The price for Bitcoin is eternal vigilance. I don't think that an ossified protocol helps here. I could say the same about BTC. And I acknowledge that making (too many) unwise changes will definitely cripple any project.

Unwise = partial interest (rent seeking) over common interest (encouraging competition/equal conditions). In that sense I think ossifying the protocol is an anti-competition move and it's as useless as BTC's 1M limit which simply blinds out all the other competing chains referring to them as "scams" thanks to maximalism ideology.

That said I'm neutral regarding both BCH versions.

It's a protocol, not a toy. Max blocksize should not be part of a protocol.

 

[Norway]

@mia_EMN
LN doesn't scale. No solution to routing.

 

[bitsko]

uncertainty due to lack of understanding plus a vivid imagination, I guess.



I would've just removed the blocksize limit entirely myself, knowing full well that miners can and would sort out the technicalities (optimizations, block transmission innovations etc) themselves in a safe manner. It had to stay there in a relative "safe zone" imo because some people shat their pants over the prospect of removing it. So the road BCH (ABC) is on regarding blocksize is a compromise in my view, but a workable one. In case ABC devs deny raising/removing it in time we can always fork. To fork now over blocksize is idiotic, but what can you do... it's a viable governance mode. Comes at huge cost, though. Look at the mess!

Yes, we can always fork.

On borrowed time, earlier is better.

 

[freetrader]

@Peter R has been pwned:

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/why-i-troll-5304f2cbbfc3
[doublepost=1543239173][/doublepost]
It's a protocol, not a toy. Max blocksize should not be part of a protocol.

I'm sure Craig 'pwning' people on Twitter and Medium is going to make SV supporters some money.

/s
[doublepost=1543240421][/doublepost]

...

EOS, huh?

 

[Norway]

Let's set this straight, @Peter R :

Are the miners forming a small world network/near complete graph or not?

What is the average number of hops between mining nodes?

EDIT:
Do you understand that your observing science nodes are not mining nodes, and that they can not measure the time for miners to receive a block?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann



This definitely came across wrong and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to accuse anyone (and I don't think I did), it was just an honest worry of mine based on my inability to understand his position regarding blocksize limit removal. I also have no problem accepting other peoples positions. This seems to have come across wrong also. Again I apologize.

I'm trying to understand and learn. I haven't really made up my mind yet about a lot of things currently on the table. So I'm having a hard time placing your



when I don't even know wether I disagree with you.



Neither, I would've started a discussion. And had I been told to "fuck off" and that "my money wasn't needed" my decision would've been clear.

I'm not in blind agreement with the decisions ABC team made and I also have my problems with the bi-annual forks and general governance processes. It's still less problematic than what I see with SV.

Yes, I think I misinterpreted your post somehow. I agree with your point - as much as I like the SV roadmap, it depends way too much on actors which are not so much know to be very trustworthy ...

I'm still in process of making my mind up. I tend to support SV, because I don't want to care about people's business, but about outcomes, and mostly because I lost most of my hope that BCH (ABC) will get us the big blocks bitcoin I wanted to have. I can fully understand that some people support the vision of ABC (BCH), but for me this is rather like people supporting the vision of something like IOTA, as of Bitcoin. Not wanting to insult someone with this. Just MY absolutely subjective take of it. For me SV is the best chance to have the Bitcoin I wanted to have.

On the other side ... yes, CSW and CoinGeek are special entities. I'm disappointed. They needed not even ten days to transform several times: There will be no split - the hashware will last for months - we can end it if you add replay protection - we add replay protection. How can you trust them with their promise to freeze the protocol, when they change their mind all day?

So, it's hard to say what's worse ... but at least one side has a vision I share and seems to be not completely blind about social issues ...
[doublepost=1543243820][/doublepost]

That sounds a lot like religion. Extremists on all sides feel an urge for blood lust!? Fighting over the one and only true meaning of THE word.

Nothing big has ever happened without a cult. Having a cult and extremists makes the difference between a currency and a shitcoin / science experiment.

 

[8up]

I prefer culture over cult.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

me to, but there is no culture without a cult

 

[Norway]

Culture without a cult is ure.

 

[lunar]

ABC roasted. and an end to the hash war?

But within just a week of the November 15 upgrade, ABC hastily implemented numerous controversial changes, some of them hard forks – such as adding checkpoints, a 10-block reorganization defense. ABC also demonstrated clear intent to abandon the Nakamoto consensus Proof of Work security model with plans to add Avalanche, a pre-consensus system for miners to agree in advance about the next block size and move BCH towards a Proof of Stake system. These changes mean that ABC has abandoned fundamental principles of Bitcoin – the Nakamoto consensus and miners’ Proof of Work to determine the valid blockchain – and bears even less resemblance to Bitcoin than BTC’s SegWit coin.

“One aspect of stability is replay protection. Since ABC has not made this stability a priority, Bitcoin SV will do so in order to restore confidence to users and businesses on both chains. This change will require the Bitcoin SV team to work with the Bitcoin ecosystem, and the timeline will be announced when there is adequate ecosystem readiness.”

 

[Norway]

The white flag from Calvin Ayre could be a trap.