Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
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.
Predictability is important for growth. You cannot build on sand. There is no fear, this is simple logic.

Incentive systems don't happen to work just because they exist. Incentive systems are everywhere in life, there are good incentive systems and there are bad incentive systems. Developpers in cryptos are fucking free riders, the incentive system is broken.

Too many people try to exploit Bitcoin and cryptos to advance their career. Nobody seem to care about the long term prospect. People think this will just happen. People seem to believe bull markets are given. They seem to think just because "this is crypto and crypto is cool... incentive system... you know".

What is working exactly? Who use cryptos for payment after 10 fucking years? A 90% correction is not enough? More is needed before self introspection?
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Predictability is important for growth. You cannot build on sand. There is no fear, this is simple logic.
Sure thing, but what does that actually mean?

On BCH, transactions work just like they did before, with the additional capabilities available now by OP_CHECKDATASIG/-VERIFY.

The only thing that can reasonably be said to cause some (minor) issues on the higher layers building on top is CTOR, with e.g. Electron Cash displaying transactions in wrong order and showing intermittent negative balances because of this.

And I think and have also said that CTOR was rushed, yes.

I have also said, and I like to repeat this here, that I feel that anyone building on top of BCH should prepare their code for any order, lest they have a really good reason to assume lexical ordering.

But just because BCH is imperfect in this (in the grand scheme of things also rather minor way!) doesn't suddenly make BSV the better choice. Because the imperfection of that coin is just massive. Including the stability angle.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
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.
At best of my knowledge SV chain got multiple orphan races(*) (**). That means that an actual miner has extended a minority chain for a brief period of time. We are not talking about "random observation nodes". How do you reconcile this fact with the fact that miners should be "better connected" (1hop from each other).


(*) This is an example of length-2 orphan race on Bitcoin SV

bin/bitcoin-cli getchaintips
[
{
"height": 557319,
"hash": "000000000000000001ae1a2eeda841d099e85b00b29a8f84bdd4f58e380338de",
"branchlen": 0,
"status": "active"
},
{
"height": 557301,
"hash": "000000000000000001a11bf6da0ce31699ac4cbd312fb573886f85b979252f70",
"branchlen": 2,
"status": "valid-fork"
},


(**) If memory serves during the Nov 17th stress test SVpool alone got something like 5 orphans
 

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
Sure thing, but what does that actually mean?

On BCH, transactions work just like they did before, with the additional capabilities available now by OP_CHECKDATASIG/-VERIFY.

The only thing that can reasonably be said to cause some (minor) issues on the higher layers building on top is CTOR, with e.g. Electron Cash displaying transactions in wrong order and showing intermittent negative balances because of this.

And I think and have also said that CTOR was rushed, yes.

I have also said, and I like to repeat this here, that I feel that anyone building on top of BCH should prepare their code for any order, lest they have a really good reason to assume lexical ordering.

But just because BCH is imperfect in this (in the grand scheme of things also rather minor way!) doesn't suddenly make BSV the better choice. Because the imperfection of that coin is just massive. Including the stability angle.
Even if BCH > BSV today, in 5 or 20 years this will be irrelevant. The commitment to predictibility bears fruit in the long term.

BCH has not shown such a commitment. CTOR is the symptom of the illness, CTOR is not the illness.
 

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
@awemany : If BSV gain any traction, the importance of nChain and CSW will decrease. Success is the cure of our curse.
[doublepost=1543590251][/doublepost]
Maybe @BldSwtTrs can explain the upcoming replay protection. I'm sure those businesses trying to build on BSV would like to know beforehand.
That's unfortunate, but again, this a short term problem, which will be deemed irrelevant in a few years.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995

dang, one way street.
lol, free trader my ass. you must've offended his delicate insensibilities. :LOL::ROFLMAO::p
[doublepost=1543594125][/doublepost]
And a single company running the show
this is in your mind. ppl don't have to run their code. and if you do and he makes a wrong move? fork.
talking about recirculating lost coins is the hallmark of stability?
it's pretty clear he does a lot of talking/blabbing. focus on the actions. like an honest fork w/o silly reorg protections or checkpoints unilaterally inserted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Maybe I should publish a special Bitcoin Cash (BCH) address, where bitsko, Zarathustra and cypherdoc can deposit $10 in BCH with an OP_RETURN linking to their forum posts which I will then read. (thanks to Ryan X. Charles and before him, Adam Back, for the general inspiration of that idea).

I think this is actually a neat idea. I'll start the vanity address generator. I'll freely trade my attention for your hard cash too.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Maybe @BldSwtTrs can explain the upcoming replay protection. I'm sure those businesses trying to build on BSV would like to know beforehand.
if anyone can't see the developer=/investor mindset going on by now, i don't know what will convince you. yep, this is business and reality displacing the overweening voluntaryist model of the last 9y.
[doublepost=1543594775][/doublepost]
Maybe I should publish a special Bitcoin Cash (BCH) address, where bitsko, Zarathustra and cypherdoc can deposit $10 in BCH with an OP_RETURN linking to their forum posts which I will then read. (thanks to Ryan X. Charles and before him, Adam Back, for the general inspiration of that idea).

I think this is actually a neat idea. I'll start the vanity address generator. I'll freely trade my attention for your hard cash too.
i'm disappointed i wasn't good enough to be blocked. unless i am and i don't realize it!!! lol!!! :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Maybe I should publish a special Bitcoin Cash (BCH) address, where bitsko, Zarathustra and cypherdoc can deposit $10 in BCH with an OP_RETURN linking to their forum posts which I will then read. (thanks to Ryan X. Charles and before him, Adam Back, for the general inspiration of that idea).

I think this is actually a neat idea. I'll start the vanity address generator. I'll freely trade my attention for your hard cash too.
Doesn't make much sense. You are reading our comments anyway.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
let's get this out of the way since it's been bugging me. @freetrader, do you get paid by Bitmain?
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Good question. ABC devs enjoy hidden sponsoring. Deadalnix did not answer the question. So nobody knows where the conflicts of interests lie. BU's ABC fans seem not to be interested in such minor details.
 

_bc

Member
Mar 17, 2017
33
130
>This is why we have to kill the weak chains. No mercy.

ABC supporters scoff at this like it's amoral and whether it's wise. but i can tell you for a fact that in 2011, when BCX & Artforz were most active in killing off altcoins, it made everyone else sit up on the edge of their seats and pay close attention (learn about the merits or demerits of said altcoin) to whether and which altcoins they might throw their fiat at. they were dangerous times the intention meant to help BTC bootstrap. which every BTC hodler benefited from whether they want to admit it or not.
Innovation and competition are important. In school, and in brainstorming sessions we might say that "there are no bad ideas" because we want to foster young brains, or do a breadth-first search for good ideas (before they're *eventually* culled). In the adult world, however, we can't protect everyone's feelings nor bad ideas. We can guess, but we can't even truly know if they're bad ideas until they're weighed by the market. No one has all the information to pronounce such things. See Hayek.

But we can vote with our forum words and our actions. These votes create new data - like focus groups. People tend to weigh actions more heavily than words, though - like miners taking a stance.

If someone thinks InflationCoins, or FreeShitCoins, or any coins, are a great idea, should we refrain from proving them wrong? Mining is a more active form of debate. If a coin can't attract enough strong miners to "defend" them from "evil" "attacking" debaters or miners, then maybe they're doing something wrong. Bitcoin isn't succeeding because people were polite to early adopters. Bitcoin is succeeding because it's a good idea.

Artforz could have just as easily gone the other way. He could have attacked Bitcoin, and promoted some altcoin. Why didn't he? Because Bitcoin was a better idea. He did more than stake his reputation on it. He made a bigger, louder statement.

Life is short. If an attack on an altcoin or split coin produces actionable data, it can help focus and inform future investors on the viability of different paths.

Anyone against miners "attacking" coins might look at a bigger picture. An attack on a coin is an opportunity for that coin to prove how anti-fragile it is. Did it survive? Wonderful. Then maybe they should thank the "attacker" for expending his resources only to qualify the coin. Did it fail? So sad. Maybe those supporting the coin didn't really have their heart in it. Maybe the attacker cut to the chase, and saved the nest eggs of millions of potential investors. Maybe the attacker was a visionary to be thanked - helping to guide them out of the forest.

Anyone and everyone can produce a fork, but there's no value in six billion forks. Maybe the long term future will have one. Maybe ten. We'll see.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@Zarathustra

well, a little bird told me who he thought @freetrader really is and it blew my mind. yes, we can really find out if we really dig, @freetrader, so don't try lying. not that i care and not that i will, it's just that when one argues as viciously and vociferously as he does/you do, it makes ppl want to seriously know. and it would all just blow away if he'd just answer my question honestly. but is honest what we can really expect from him/you at this point?
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
let's get this out of the way since it's been bugging me. @freetrader, do you get paid by Bitmain?
No, as I've said elsewhere before.
well, a little bird told me who he thought @freetrader really is and it blew my mind. yes, we can really find out if we really dig, @freetrader, so don't try lying.
All pseudonymity is temporary. I have no doubt about that. Who is "we" in your sentence, agent @cypherdoc? I'd like to know which agency have you on payroll...

i'm disappointed i wasn't good enough to be blocked
It's true, you weren't :dogecoin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
>I'd like to know which agency have you on payroll...


absolutely no agency, none, zero, nada. and no company. i've stated before, the only conflict of interest i have is that of the desire for my coins value to go up. i'm not affiliated nor paid by anyone in the space or anyone out of the space. and since ppl know who i am, unlike you, this is verifiable.
[doublepost=1543598799][/doublepost]furthermore, my arguments are "right up my alley" as @molecular says. i've been consistent in my views for the most part since i started this thread 2011.
 
Last edited: