Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[go1111111]

Bitcoin's game theory is based on competing groups fighting over the same blockchain, thus creating a balance of powers favourable to the community and investors. Instead, power structures form, only to split off by creating their own fiefdoms that they solely control.

If BU made a mistake, it was not by not taking a side, but by not pushing hard enough against a split.

I agree. I think the main lesson so far is: network effects are more important than ABC folks realize. ABC devs think they can repeatedly afford to do things that strongly alienate ~10% of people and mildly alienate 30%. They probably thought "unhappiness from our rushed hard fork will blow over in a month and everything will be back to normal." It happened to not work out that well this time because SV was looking for an excuse to force a showdown.

IMO this teaches us that we should be willing to split when it's really important (like the initial 2017 fork breaking from Core and their 'settlement layer' path) but we should try a lot harder to resist splitting if not that much is at stake.

 

[cypherdoc]

i'm sorry you sold all your SV

 

[Norway]

OK then, so the existing opcode set would require super-large txns to do ECC, with thousands of opcodes. DSV is a simple change to enable the validation of signed data in the current software.
Implementing bignum enables more sophisticated opcodes, but is a big technical change in itself, even if not a consensus rule change.
I am sure that BU can collaborate on bignum development.

Yess!

 

[Norway]

@deadalnix is in Bangkok, Thailand.

He has the opportunity to talk to miners from different countries.

He gets the microphone in his hand. Translators have been rented to convert english to chinese live.

What does @deadalnix talk about in this situattion?

He talks about how "poison blocks" are dangerous to miners. That the poison block attack is very, very scary.

I think @deadalnix is a cool and nice person.

But he should fuck off. Fuck off @deadalnix. Stay away from my money.

 

[adamstgbit]

"poison blocks, are bad because it hurts small miners which leads to centralization?"
was that his argument??
what a shame...

 

[Norway]

@adamstgbit
Yeah, the scary Poison Blocks are just what core devs said. And yes, they are bad because they hurt small miners. Small miners who refuse a steady income by joining a pool and prefer to play lotto.

My point is that an attack with big blocks is very weak. ABC didn't do it during the hash battle. Because it would show how weak the "attack" would be.

And it seems like people who think the bitcoin network is a mesh, is the same people who are the most scared of big poisonous blocks.

But from their view, the poison block can't propagate because it crash every node it gets in touch with.

I'm getting tired of cheering @Peter R's scientific experiements on. Because he's obsessed with a personality (CSW) and his experiments are a victims of his bias. The white lab coat and nice graphs are nothing if you are skewed.

If you refuse to accept that miners are better connected than random observation nodes, you come to stupid conclusions like a 64bMB block takes 20 minutes to propagate to an undefined receiver.

Ok, let's get ugly.

Emin Gün Sirer, a good friend of Peter, is trying to sell a service (bloXroute) where the company is trying to be a man in the middle distributing blocks to miners. They are even holding back the blocks and distributing them at the same time to all miners to make mining more "fair".

@Peter R should take a stance on this issue. He can't be a chief scientist as long as he is is supporting the idea of a mesh network with mining and non-mining nodes. He should fall back to the "secretary" position we elected him for.

 

[cypherdoc]

@adamstgbit

now you know why he runs to r/bitcoin and cries bcash when he doesn't get his way.

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit
Yeah, the scary Poison Blocks are just what core devs said. And yes, they are bad because they hurt small miners. Small miners who refuse a steady income by joining a pool and prefer to play lotto.

My point is that an attack with big blocks is very weak. ABC didn't do it during the hash battle. Because it would show how weak the "attack" would be.

And it seems like people who think the bitcoin network is a mesh, is the same people who are the most scared of big poisonous blocks.

But from their view, the poison block can't propagate because it crash every node it gets in touch with.

I'm getting tired of cheering @Peter R's scientific experiements on. Because he's obsessed with a personality (CSW) and his experiments are a victims of his bias. The white lab coat and nice graphs are nothing if you are skewed.

If you refuse to accept that miners are better connected than random observation nodes, you come to stupid conclusions like a 64bMB block takes 20 minutes to propagate to an undefined receiver.

Ok, let's get ugly.

Emin Gün Sirer, a good friend of Peter, is trying to sell a service (bloXroute) where the company is trying to be a man in the middle distributing blocks to miners. They are even holding back the blocks and distributing them at the same time to all miners to make mining more "fair".

@Peter R should take a stance on this issue. He can't be a chief scientist as long as he is is supporting the idea of a mesh network with mining and non-mining nodes. He should fall back to the "secretary" position we elected him for.

when did @Peter R become the enemy!? i always thought Peter R was an asset and produced valuable content. i thought we all had the same goal of allowing bitcoin to scale. i never thought things would get this bad. you guys are being as unreasonable as CSW.

its sad really.
one side thinks it a good idea to optamize the protocal to allow for bigger blocks
the other side thinks that the protocal is "good enoght" and all we need to do is scale the hardware for bigger block
and the sad part is, we will never know which side is right, cuz both sides will never NEED big blocks, because both sides are gana remain relevant forever!

42KB blocks forever. because we couldn't keep it together.

Today I'm depressed about the future of bitcoin

me too.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I agree. I think the main lesson so far is: network effects are more important than ABC folks realize. ABC devs think they can repeatedly afford to do things that strongly alienate ~10% of people and mildly alienate 30%. They probably thought "unhappiness from our rushed hard fork will blow over in a month and everything will be back to normal." It happened to not work out that well this time because SV was looking for an excuse to force a showdown.

IMO this teaches us that we should be willing to split when it's really important (like the initial 2017 fork breaking from Core and their 'settlement layer' path) but we should try a lot harder to resist splitting if not that much is at stake.

I agree, too. It would have been better when BU defaulted to Classic instead of ABC.

 

[Tom Zander]

All this was the reason,why I welcomed the hash war that did never happen and was highly alienated by team ABC, which became immediately pro split.

The moment the first blocks were mined on both chains, there was a split. This was a fact and there was no way for those chains to ever come back together.

This is the nature of blockchain, this is the nature of the changes that both BCH and BSV added on the 15th of November.

You are not accepting this reality if you expected that there somehow would be any other outcome than a split.

I find it odd that you blame the miners, and the software devs that do stuff at request of those miners, to actually act on this reality.

That act has been responsible to avoid any and all deep re-orgs!

Now, if you wish for BCH to be hurt (Like @Norway explicitly stated he wants), I understand being you sad that they had the presence of mind to "raise shields" before damage could be done.

What eludes me is the circular reasoning here; you state you switched to BSV because BCH defended itself, an act you would only find a problem if you were already wanting BCH harm. As many BSV people seem to want.

For clarity; I wish the BSV people all the luck, may their coin do well. It is not my choice, but my values are with the open market and I don't fear it.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

You are not accepting this reality if you expected that there somehow would be any other outcome than a split.

I actually expected the ABC loyal miners to mine the classic chain, which would have made it impossible to split the chain. SV hardfork has no wipeout protection, which ensures that there is no split without sustainable hashpower majority. Both hardforks have been fundamentally different. One was made to split, one to keep it united.

What eludes me is the circular reasoning here; you state you switched to BSV because BCH defended itself,

They did not defend themselves, they insisted on having a chainsplit which splits the community and kills network effects.

 

[freetrader]

I actually expected the ABC loyal miners to mine the classic chain, which would have made it impossible to split the chain.

Well then, you miscalculated.

Ask yourself why they should be doing Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright any favors.

 

[Tom Zander]

I actually expected the ABC loyal miners to mine the classic chain, which would have made it impossible to split the chain.

SV would still have split off with their miners, the split would still have happened. Realize that it took maybe 2 blocks before a transaction on the BSV side was mined that caused the block to be rejected by any other software than BSV.

I stand by my claim, the chains were always going to split regardless of what the BCH side (which you for some reason call ABC) did.

Unless you expected that the entire BCH ecosystem would follow CSW / nChain. Did you expect that?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Well then, you miscalculated.

Ask yourself why they should be doing Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright any favors.

I expected them to do what is good for BCH.

@Tom Zander

I stand by my claim, the chains were always going to split regardless of what the BCH side (which you for some reason call ABC) did.

Unless you expected that the entire BCH ecosystem would follow CSW / nChain. Did you expect that?

Think about missing wipeout protection. I'm really surprised nearly nobody seems to be able to get this.

 

[Tom Zander]

[BCH miners] did not defend themselves, they insisted on having a chainsplit which splits the community and kills network effects.

I find this interesting. BSV mined a BCH incompatible block. This is an indisputable fact (try to sync the BSV chain with an older BU client if you doubt this, it won't work).
Notice that this means that there WAS whipeout protection!

Splitting off was their choice. A choice that is Ok with me.

The same happened with the BTC/BCH split. The BCH chain split off.

Notice that BTC didn't try to stop us either. Does that mean that BTC also "insisted" on having a chainsplit?

Honestly, this sounds like you view it like a marriage that went sour and you are sad that the divorce papers are signed since you think it would have been possible to get along, somehow.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Tom Zander

I find this interesting. BSV mined a BCH incompatible block. This is an indisputable fact (try to sync the BSV chain with an older BU client if you doubt this, it won't work).
Notice that this means that there WAS whipeout protection!

With the majority hashrate mining classic, the BSV-blockchain would have died immediately.

Like BCH would have died immediately without Wipeout protection.

 

[lunar]

METANET !

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

The two fork proposals left the other side with several options.

ABC fork:
Follow - no split.
Classic - split.
SV - split.

SV fork:
Follow - no split.
Classic - no split.
ABC - split.

This means the ABC fork did technically increase the chance of a split and decreased the chance to get over this united. It literally let the other side no other choice then "do what we want, or you get the split." While the SV side left the choice to "do nothing and we'll see."

You could say that the fork was tailored to produce the worst outcome for BCH. After there was a substantial resistence against the fork, it was absolutely irresponsible to insist on it. If we talk about an attack, the ABC fork was one: An action that is predictable to do a lot harm to a cryptocurrency.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

@adamstgbit
Emin Gün Sirer, a good friend of Peter,

Let's never forget:

This guy have tried so hard to rise to some level of prominence since all this years, I am sincerely happy for him he managed to somehow make it. But I think everyone should be remembered his absolute and intrinsic lack of credibility.

 

[sickpig]

The nChain camp is too busy and sloppy. They browse it and think it's preconsensus! But it's not

Welcome to the club. This kind of things seems to happen pretty frequently.

just to show i don't discriminate, why don't we build GROUP into ABC/BU/BCH and let Floyd and D.J. sell their tokens? we could all be groupies.

i.e. tokenization systems are not bad per se. It depends on how you use it. Like anything else in the world I guess.

But he should fuck off. Fuck off @deadalnix. Stay away from my money.

How is it possible to have @deadalnix force you to stay/use a cash payment system he has direct influence upon?

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

Problem is that the only feasible approach while dealing with CSW is 'take or leave'. We have tried to find a balance, a compromise, in fact @theZerg was the one proposing BUIP 098 (implementing SC changeset in BU), you can't say that is a direct consequence of the fact that Andrew have "some apparent irreconcilable differences".

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

Why aren't you using @theZerg's handle? It would be better to do it so that we can give him a chance to notice the reference and chime in case it has something to say.