Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

there's no talk about removing libsecp256k1

well, maybe it should be removed? That thing might be backdoored... who knows? I sure can't tell (tried, but fuck me that's over my head), but I dug a little in the context and I noticed that concerns to that end (possible backdoor) were very quickly dismissed by pwuille, gmaxwell and one or two other people I don't know on the grounds that the lib had "excellent documentation and testing infrastructure" and that this had already resulted in discovery of a bug in openssl implementation and it was fucking fast and therefore it didn't need years of scrutinizing in the open as is usually demanded from crypto implementations to be called "secure".

Maybe I'm over-cautious or prone to conspiracy-theories or whatever, but removal of libsecp256k1 would actually move me closer to SV quite a bit.

 

[Norway]

Interesting talk about the relationship between ABC, BU and XT near the end of the clip.
Ryan X. Charles, Jason Chavannes and The BCH Boys.

 

[cypherdoc]

on a side-note: maybe it should be? That thing might be backdoored... who knows? I sure can't tell, but I dug a little and I noticed that concerns to that end were very quickly dismissed by pwuille, gmaxwell and one or two other people I don't know on the grounds that the lib had "excellent documentation and testing infrastructure" and that this had already resulted in discovery of a bug in openssl implementation and it was fucking fast and therefore it didn't need years of scrutinizing in the open.

Maybe I'm over-cautious or prone to conspiracy-theories or whatever, but removal of libsecp256k1 would actually move me closer to SV.

lol, I had the same concerns at the time. Maxwell claims at least 50% of the credit to devving that. we talked about it here. maybe SV should

 

[cypherdoc]

one thing that occurred to me is that we of the original BCH community will forever be divided, even in this thread. why? because the anti CSW rhetoric had built up to such an intensity, hate, and fervor pre fork, even beyond that of the anti Bcore crowd over its many years, that many of us impulsively sold all our SV at the first chance either through the futures market or immediately after the fork. those types of moves are pretty irreversible and will entrench us forever into our polar opposite opinions and rhetoric.

IOW, get used to the intensity.

 

[awemany]

With OP_RETURN, wallets seem to become yet another inbox for advertisements.

Let me the first to coin the word adverpayment for this

Maybe that will be a "business opportunity" at some day: Create many, many almost-empty UTXOs. Support yourself from the gambling ads coming in. Predicted next step by the advertisers: Software to intelligently send ads only to unrelated UTXOs

 

[cypherdoc]

Interesting talk about the relationship between ABC, BU and XT near the end of the clip.
Ryan X. Charles, Jason Chavannes and The BCH Boys.

just now listening. right off the bat, i find what Ryan has to say about blocking ppl that not only troll but ping him. this is interesting b/c it reminds me about Bloomie complaining about me pinging him when i complain about his actions. i think it's a fair complaint now that Ryan has explained it. mind you, i would ping Bloomie out of respect for not wanting to talk behind his back with my criticisms, not to irritate or troll him. from here on out, i won't ping him, as per his perceived wishes. and as a result, we'll get to sit here and view spam for the 5 or so days it takes for him to wander by here and remove it.

@3:35:

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

well, maybe it should be removed? That thing might be backdoored... who knows? I sure can't tell (tried, but fuck me that's over my head), but I dug a little in the context and I noticed that concerns to that end (possible backdoor) were very quickly dismissed by pwuille, gmaxwell and one or two other people I don't know on the grounds that the lib had "excellent documentation and testing infrastructure" and that this had already resulted in discovery of a bug in openssl implementation and it was fucking fast and therefore it didn't need years of scrutinizing in the open as is usually demanded from crypto implementations to be called "secure".

Maybe I'm over-cautious or prone to conspiracy-theories or whatever, but removal of libsecp256k1 would actually move me closer to SV quite a bit.

I exactly had the same thought reading this conversation. However, removing it would make syncing a node much harder CPU-wise.

Edit: Not only me, cypherdoc also ... at least here we are united again
[doublepost=1543512449][/doublepost]

With OP_RETURN, wallets seem to become yet another inbox for advertisements.

Let me the first to coin the word adverpayment for this

Maybe that will be a "business opportunity" at some day: Create many, many almost-empty UTXOs. Support yourself from the gambling ads coming in. Predicted next step by the advertisers: Software to intelligently send ads only to unrelated UTXOs

Next step: Create a wallet that only shows op_returns when it comes with an utxo of at least one Euro

 

[Norway]

With OP_RETURN, wallets seem to become yet another inbox for advertisements.

Let me the first to coin the word adverpayment for this

Maybe that will be a "business opportunity" at some day: Create many, many almost-empty UTXOs. Support yourself from the gambling ads coming in. Predicted next step by the advertisers: Software to intelligently send ads only to unrelated UTXOs

Yes, but it's also easy to defend against ads like this. You'll have a "spam folder" generating some money.

Is it related to the Ryan X. Charles/BCH Boys clip? They are talking about the subject, not as ads, but more like the opposite where you need to pay an amount, like $10, to send a message to someone.

 

[cypherdoc]

wow, Ryan makes a prediction in the video that i completely agree with; ABC, BU, XT, etc will continue to have disagreements creating much turmoil and wasted time and development going forward into the foreseeable future. the only thing they all agree with is CSW bad. the outlook for BU and other non ABC implementations is grim.

ABC may cheer this outcome on, but the reality is, ABC's future by extension is also grim.

 

[Norway]

Disappointed about the CoinGeek conference so far regarding scaling. No 128MB blocks on mainnet, no test results from SV client or Teranode client.

They may deliver tomorrow, but I doubt it.

 

[Bagatell]

"where you need to pay an amount, like $10, to send a message to someone."

sounds familiar.

 

[Norway]

the outlook for BU and other non ABC implementations is grim.

Depends on what we do. I think BU is in a great position.

@Bagatell
Yeah, Hashcash lol!

 

[cypherdoc]

"where you need to pay an amount, like $10, to send a message to someone."

sounds familiar.

are you referring to Ryan's idea about charging unknown trolls from spamming him? he said he gets like 200 pings a day from mostly unknown folks, who in fact are threatening or spamming him. thus, he thinks charging them $10/message to stop it makes sense. i tend to agree. he never says those unknowns should be stopped from trolling him in public online forums w/o the ping.
[doublepost=1543514943][/doublepost]

Depends on what we do. I think BU is in a great position.

i tend to disagree. and this from someone who helped conceive it. their problem is that both Peter and Andrew have some apparent irreconcilable differences, right or wrong, with CSW. they don't appear to be able to get past that. the others aren't showing much in terms of leadership. ABC is walking them around by the nose. but there is a larger problem here that i've already stated; the overweening voluntaryist dev model may be becoming obsolete. i strongly believe that real business and investors, such as myself, are just sick and tired of waiting for the voluntaryists to get their acts together. they've proven, beyond a doubt imo, to be ignorant of Satoshi's original vision and dev for either profit or fame. they are only human after all and probably don't even realize it, so i don't particularly blame them. it takes a true self aware revolutionary to do things solely for the public good.

 

[cypherdoc]

Disappointed about the CoinGeek conference so far regarding scaling. No 128MB blocks on mainnet, no test results from SV client or Teranode client.

They may deliver tomorrow, but I doubt it.

are you there?

 

[molecular]

With OP_RETURN, wallets seem to become yet another inbox for advertisements.

Let me the first to coin the word adverpayment for this

Maybe that will be a "business opportunity" at some day: Create many, many almost-empty UTXOs. Support yourself from the gambling ads coming in. Predicted next step by the advertisers: Software to intelligently send ads only to unrelated UTXOs

over-next step: software to de-link utxos. Here you have it: ad-supported privacy ;-)

 

[cypherdoc]

on UTXO's; i wish that apps like Electron Cash or Electrum were capable of freezing the dust tracking UTXO's that get sent to just about all address balances these days for tracking purposes.

 

[Norway]

their problem is that both Peter and Andrew have some apparent irreconcilable differences, right or wrong, with CSW.

Yes, I agree with that. But it's not a static situation.

As a seasoned client developer, BU have been doing two things:

1. Developing the client.
2. Developing the consensus rules.

#1 has been just great, and this is where I see the potential for BU forward.
#2 has no future for BU as I see it. It's either following ABC rules and maybe get some new changes into the protocol as a political horse trade with ABC while undermining the whole system by changing constantly with potential chain splits all the time. Or following the SV rules and a stable rule set where the consensus rules are not developed.

 

[awemany]

I wonder whether the whole 'lock the protocol down' saying that is so common with the BSV crowd, including the folks in here, is actually an argument from an irrational fear of change and an irrational fear of the crypto incentive system actually working.

It is the same old "code is law" all over again.

It seems to me that Satoshi saying 'the protocol being set in stone' is rather a descriptive than a normative statement. In other words, it is the way things will be rather than the way things ought to be. The actual protocol and validation rules are only kept in place by the market anyways and the miners/devs as its proxy.

Taken it to an extreme example, if no one mines a hard capped fork anymore, than that means the market does not want the 21mio limit. I would be very suprised, however, if that wouldn't completely diminish a coins value and cause a split and move to a coin that keeps it in place.

And it seems to me that this general dynamic is shunned as generally dangerous by the BSV supporters. Maybe it is also embraced a little bit too much for my personal taste by BCH right now (and there especially ABC) but in general I think the "lock it all down" as an ought is exactly the wrong way to look at the situation.
----
@molecular: LOL. I like that line of thought

 

[cypherdoc]

i'm also concerned that Andrew can't let go of his GROUP proposal. too much invested time and effort.

 

[Norway]

are you there?

Nope. I would be there if we had made our Ka-ching prototype ready for demonstration in time, but we are still working on the final touches before we want to show it to anybody. And yes, we aim for the SV-chain for our product.
[doublepost=1543518286][/doublepost]

I wonder whether the whole 'lock the protocol down' saying that is so common with the BSV crowd, including the folks in here, is actually an argument from an irrational fear of change and an irrational fear of the crypto incentive system actually working.

Yes, it's a fear of change, but no, it's not irrational.
As Roger Ver has been describing the BTC devs: They treat it as a science project.