Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

Now, as cmc has listed bsv, I realized sth: we have two strong bitcoins dedicated to onching scaling in top ten crypto. Future is bright.

Competition. Risk. Finance

Yeah, my post was liked by Zarathustra and Peter-R

Bitcoin has nearly 100mb of free onchain capacity. Time to use it, whichever chain you like better.

 

[freetrader]

@wrstuv31
how is ABC not respecting the ideas expressed in the white paper?

Intending to replace the Merkle tree with a Merklix tree is a big change that makes many people uncomfortable. The sort of thing that needs to be tested out properly on a testnet for a long time, also to give other client & library developers a chance to catch up and catch bugs.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

There is some truth in it. First time people can build on bitcoins without developers interrupting in some way

Imho Moneybutton started with the right idea but it is not going to work if you have to register as a user.

A working in browser wallet without any need for third parties and a "moneybutton" without the unnecessary overhead of yours is what is needed.
[doublepost=1543312171][/doublepost]

New There is some truth in it. First time people can build on bitcoins without developers interrupting in some way

I really, really doubt that.

If you are stupid enough to build on SV you'll burn yourself badly. And I guess smart money knows that.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes, I loved Yours, but unfortunately Ryan switched all energy to MoneyButton. I still don't fully get the idea of it, as a Bitcoin address by itself is some kind of MoneyButton. But if it is a bit like PayPal, but with Bitcoin (SV) and your funds fully under your control, it could work well ...

I really, really doubt that.

If you are stupid enough to build on SV you'll burn yourself badly. And I guess smart money knows that.

idk. Maybe, maybe not. If you use BTC, you have devs saying you shall use Lightning; if you use BCH, you have devs changing the system all 6 month; if you use BSV, you have CSW promising that there will be no fork. That's at least a chance ...

 

[freetrader]

You know what I just remembered? That someone nominated Craig Wright for a Turing Award.

 

[go1111111]

CSW is like the trump of crypto.
....
no one understands, but they do hear CSW's confidants in himself and utter lack of respect for other ideas, and they do understand THAT.

BCH has always contained a subgroup of people who is less technical/sophisticated but intuitively sense that Core is going in the wrong direction, just like Trump supporters could sense that Hilary would take them in the wrong direction even if they couldn't write a technical document explaining exactly why.

A lot of BCH supporters have been acting pretty irrational since the BCH fork, but no one pushed back on them too hard because they were at least railing against Core back then.

These are the type of people who always talked about Bilderberg conspiracies, how SegWit is bad because it makes Bitcoin no longer a "chain of digital signatures," how Core is intentionally trying to destroy Bitcoin because they took investment from banks, etc.

SV is appealing to that same segment of the BCH community, leaving BCH with more a more pragmatic community having a disposition more like Gavin or Jeff Garzik.

 

[Norway]

if @cypherdoc or other SV supporters could say 1 or 2 points why SV is more compelling then ABC i'd like to hear it.

i'm sure its been discused before, but i cant seems to find basic talking points.

you like big block and SV blocks are the biggest?

Maybe my answer to @molecular can help you:

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.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

And another app that made BCH unique goes the way of Satoshi's vision

https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187

Interesting post, covering all the problems of the ABC's chain, featuring our very own @freetrader

 

[lunar]

If you are stupid enough to build on SV you'll burn yourself badly. And I guess smart money knows that.

BCH has always contained a subgroup of people who is less technical/sophisticated but intuitively sense that Core is going in the wrong direction, just like Trump supporters

Yeah sure, because no one technical could ever possibly think SV was the better path.

https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187

https://coingeek.com/orgs-clemens-ley-demonstrates-simulate-turing-machine-using-bitcoin/

Just to give the other perspective to your nonsense. BCH always contained a sub group of people, who wanted to change bitcoin, but couldn't because of Core. Less economically minded/sophisticated revolutionaries, who can't understand, sound money needs to be stable and unchanging.

The problem with revolutions, is after the war is over, you're left with a bunch of bored revolutionaries.

 

[freetrader]

And another app that made BCH unique goes the way of Satoshi's vision

https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187

Interesting post, covering all the problems of the ABC's chain, featuring our very own @freetrader

I'm going to address _unwriter's critique (some of which I find valid - not all by far) in a while, but let me point out how grabbing one comment of mine out of this thread stream without situating it in proper context is something I find a bit disingenuous. Most people have no idea what the discussion was around, and just get triggered by words such as 'maximalist'.

There's also no balancing that 'dumbshit' comment with the rest of my position - on maximalism (as I clarified in subsequent comments) - or on ABC's current posture in the community - or on the technical issues and their discussions that preceded in this thread. So _unwriter, nice hatchet job.

And before I respond to _unwriter (in other forums or posts), I am going to say I greatly respect his work so far on Bitcoin Cash. Made possible by those who did not fear but forked Bitcoin when it had to be done. Just in case you were about to fall for an argument along the lines of "if you don't support Bitcoin SV, it means you're fearful".

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@freetrader Yes, it is somehow unfair to screenshot just one of your posts. But I think it was some kind of a peak of a differentiation between "multicoiners" and "maximalists" I and some others have observed before.

And no, presenting you are "fearful" would be completely wrong. The opposite. You habe been part of creating something great, and you have been very reasonable all way long, even long until ABC stopped being.

 

[freetrader]

All of you who are parroting the 'multicoiner' line now have in the past year supported at least BTC + BCH. With the possible exception of our "full Norway".

Doing so, I consider you hypocrites if you come crying about maximalism now, and how the Bitcoin Cash fork was a bad thing to happen. Where were you all with that attitude before CSW made it popular. Hypocrites and sycophants.

 

[cypherdoc]

I never heard an explanation as to why you stopped devving for ABC.

 

[freetrader]

> I never heard an explanation as to why you stopped devving for ABC.

Which is honestly none of your business. I can choose to spend my time on whatever I feel is most valuable to me, which is exactly what I'm doing.

Just like we never heard an explanation for you vanishing from the community for a year or so. And neither do you owe us one.

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader

>Just like we never heard an explanation for you vanishing from the community for a year or so. And neither do you owe us one.

i thought that was obvious to everyone here. i stopped posting here out of disgust with dealing with Bloomie and him force reopening this thread despite my wishes as OP (to support his ad revenues imo, not for the good of the community), while continuing to actively post on reddit, slack, and twitter with other pseudonyms (which many here can already vouch for as i didn't make much attempt to change my language). i never left the community. i think Bloomie's a hegemon and exploiter. my supposed mod privileges (which were used to lure me here only b/c i wanted them as insurance towards maybe preventing this thread from getting shutdown again ala theymos) were in name only, the privileges of which he used to lure me over here to help jump start up this new forum. what mod can't remove spam? not granting my request to remove spam confined only to this thread, which i thought i had a certain degree of privileges over since i was OP and independent of the fact i was a mod (as in other forums like BCT where OP's can shutdown/close their threads if they want), was ridiculous imo. plus, i think he's a rude dick (not that i can't be too).

so there, i explained my absence from this thread only. so again, why did you stop devving ABC and why has your opinion of Amaury flip flopped a couple of times?

 

[wrstuv31]

The sort of thing that needs to be tested out properly on a testnet for a long time

I fear the ABC testers will not know how to interpret the results correctly, because they don't fully understand the design, and will use their interpretation to further pollute the chain, just like BTC.

 

[cypherdoc]

@wrstuv31 not only that, but as i've said before, they don't have the money, the hardware resources, nor the motivation to test at the connectivity and processing levels of miners. just like @sickpig acknowledges in his 64MB block time delay analysis.
[doublepost=1543334449][/doublepost]

if @cypherdoc or other SV supporters could say 1 or 2 points why SV is more compelling then ABC i'd like to hear it.

i'm sure its been discused before, but i cant seems to find basic talking points.

you like big block and SV blocks are the biggest?

all you have to do to see my opinion on SV is to go back thru the last two weeks or so of my posts to right before the fork. that's when i really first declared my favoritism for SV.
[doublepost=1543334798,1543334082][/doublepost]

Yeah sure, because no one technical could ever possibly think SV was the better path.

https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187

https://coingeek.com/orgs-clemens-ley-demonstrates-simulate-turing-machine-using-bitcoin/

Just to give the other perspective to your nonsense. BCH always contained a sub group of people, who wanted to change bitcoin, but couldn't because of Core. Less economically minded/sophisticated revolutionaries, who can't understand, sound money needs to be stable and unchanging.

The problem with revolutions, is after the war is over, you're left with a bunch of bored revolutionaries.

anyone from the other non-ABC teams who can't see this is blind:

As of today, no one can deny the reality that the only client that has the ultimate power in Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin ABC. Everyone else has become decimated to the point where they simply function as a “follower client”. ABC doesn’t even need to discuss anything with the other teams. They can simply add new features arbitrarily in a “permission-less” manner, and push it out.
[doublepost=1543335422][/doublepost]

Yeah sure, because no one technical could ever possibly think SV was the better path.

https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187

https://coingeek.com/orgs-clemens-ley-demonstrates-simulate-turing-machine-using-bitcoin/

Just to give the other perspective to your nonsense. BCH always contained a sub group of people, who wanted to change bitcoin, but couldn't because of Core. Less economically minded/sophisticated revolutionaries, who can't understand, sound money needs to be stable and unchanging.

The problem with revolutions, is after the war is over, you're left with a bunch of bored revolutionaries.

wow, Unwriter continuing to hit the ball out of the park, this time from a non-technical standpoint. every sentence in there i'd like to quote; they're all so rich. he follows this thread! mandatory reading.

 

[cypherdoc]

Yeah sure, because no one technical could ever possibly think SV was the better path.

https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187

https://coingeek.com/orgs-clemens-ley-demonstrates-simulate-turing-machine-using-bitcoin/

Just to give the other perspective to your nonsense. BCH always contained a sub group of people, who wanted to change bitcoin, but couldn't because of Core. Less economically minded/sophisticated revolutionaries, who can't understand, sound money needs to be stable and unchanging.

The problem with revolutions, is after the war is over, you're left with a bunch of bored revolutionaries.

devastating:

It’s an extremely irresponsible mindset coming from a core protocol developer towards all the investors who are betting on them for the success of the currency.

“I want my coin to co-exist happily ever after with millions of other shitcoins”, said no investor.

Dear investors, do you really want to bet on a coin where the very developers who work on it not only don’t believe it will be the only coin that will dominate the universe, but think it’s “dumbshit” to think that way?

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1310#post-84951

 

[freetrader]

I fear the ABC testers will not know how to interpret the results correctly, because they don't fully understand the design, and will use their interpretation to further pollute the chain, just like BTC.

Consider, if you will, that ABC has had *public* testnets for their upgrades, whereas SV didn't even have a public testnet ahead of their fork.

I think the ABC developers understand testing just as well if not better than the current SV team, and I think they understand the Bitcoin design *better* than the SV team, given that they just beat them hands down in this 'hash war'.

It’s an extremely irresponsible mindset coming from a core protocol developer towards all the investors who are betting on them for the success of the currency.

Except it's not. It's acknowledging that there are other coins out there, developing the technology, and that we are in a bigger system learning from each other - while still competing.
The prime directive might here be - do not destroy what you do not fully understand.

“I want my coin to co-exist happily ever after with millions of other shitcoins”, said no investor.

I care more about end users having good experiences with peer to peer electronic cash, than "investors".
If we focus on delivering the qualities necessary for that, in a way that scales better than the rest while remaining reasonably decentralized, we should do fine.

Dear investors, do you really want to bet on a coin where the very developers who work on it not only don’t believe it will be the only coin that will dominate the universe, but think it’s “dumbshit” to think that way?

At this point, if you didn't keep all your investments in BTC but diversified into Bitcoin Cash, you are no longer a maximalist. It's that simple.
And if you previously bought into Bitcoin Cash and now weighted more into Bitcoin SV, you're no longer a maximalist.
These are all separate currencies in their own right, even though they share a ledger history.
If you hold UTXOs on these chains that you can spend independently across these various currencies, you're not a maximalist.
If you're a miner and have mined more than one of these forks and not sold all coins except on one of these forks, you're not a maximalist.

I think there's significantly more than 50% chance that history will prove investors who put all their eggs in a single "Bitcoin strain" (BTC, or BCH, or BSV, or whatever) basket to fare worse than those who don't.

If I'm still alive in 50 years I'll be selling mirrors emblazoned with "I was once a dumbshit maximalist" to those investors who never diversified.

 

[_bc]

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/why-i-troll-5304f2cbbfc3

> If Alice and Bob discover a valid block at exactly the same time, but Alice can propagate her block to other miners faster than Bob, then Alice still wins, as she will be seen as the first one.

I always struggle to parse CSW's writings, but surely this is incorrect.

If Bob continues mining on his block and finds (maybe he is really lucky) another block on top of his, and then propagates his block out to other miners before another block is mined on top of Alice's, then Bob wins.

> if Bob was notified, he would know that other miners are going to now be already building on Alice’s block and that his is no longer worth continuing with.

How could he possibly know his block was not worth continuing with, until he saw Alice's block had been built on?

If Bob believes most miners are building on Alice's block (not his), he knows that it's a race pitting his hash against the hash of all the other miners. That's a race not worth running.
[doublepost=1543343909][/doublepost]To be clear: we're talking about Bob mining on his block versus most other miners mining on Alice's block.