Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitsko]

tfw you just want to talk ideas but your whole fork is predicated on your dictator choosing the ideas with which to exclude an individual.

to all those who disregarded the video based on the term bcash; that is andreas brekken, associated with bitcoin.com and was involved in fork strategy.

i think its important that people get in line with the proper view, that bitcoin cash is NOT bitcoin, it never was bitcoin to jihan who cautioned against the poisoned branding, its not bitcoin to Amaury as far as im aware, technically it can be argued it is not bitcoin, peter made good points in this thread about how we shouldnt restrict ourselves based on the notion of what bitcoin should be, rather we should think about what works.

if people still dont think the fork had anything to do with a purge, rather it had something to do with ideas, im sorry, youve been played by the actual shotcallers.

BU has its own section in this forum, folks prefer this thread, ironically the same folks that prefer 'free speech' yet are calling for a thread split and want to boot the OP.

ban me, ignore me, talk about ideas, just dont mistake choices made for you about people to have their foundation in technical matters.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Indeed.
The standpoint "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash and not Bitcoin" was promoted by Jihan.
Roger was more on the position "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin".
But now Roger has fallen in line with Jihan, like everyone in the BCH camp.

I just want to say something important here. I talked with a very important Chinese BTC miner, maybe 12 months ago. He has already lunched 1 to 1 with Jihan .
This Chinese mineur told me that Jihan want the 2017 Bitcon fork to diversify his risk. Jihan wanted a back up in case Core devs choose to switch the hash function on BTC. I am sure every body will remember that this was a serious possibility in the discussions leading to the summer 2017.
So that's make perfect sense from Jihan's standpoint to create himself a "hash function back up".

Jihan play the game for his narrow self interest. Nothing wrong with that. But every body should have a crystal clear understanding of that.

 

[freetrader]

Bitcoin Cash chose a new name because the brand Bitcoin was indelibly tainted by those who captured BTC, and put it on a course where it would either remain stagnant or implode at some stage.

Those of us who put work into creating the BCH fork knew very well that we couldn't predict how and when BTC 'Bitcoin' would destruct.
But it was important that Bitcoin Cash distinguish itself from the dead end for Bitcoin that BTC represented.

Others preferred to emphasize that Bitcoin Cash's onchain roadmap was aligned more closely to the Bitcoin design than BTC's roadmap. Unfortunately they played into the hands of BTC'ers who then denounced BCH as being scammy. I think it was a strategic mistake on the part of these BCH proponents. I can understand it from the POV of Bitcoin users angry at BTC, but business people should think and act beyond that.

i think its important that people get in line with the proper view, that bitcoin cash is NOT bitcoin, it never was bitcoin to jihan who cautioned against the poisoned branding

As someone said it on Reddit - look out for statements from Core leadership denouncing SV for trying to take the Bitcoin brand. I think you will find a lack of such. Instead, we will see offers of help and endorsements like that of Maxwell and Cobra.

`Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)

Jihan wanted a back up in case Core devs choose to switch the hash function on BTC. I am sure every body will remember that this was a serious possibility in the discussions leading to the summer 2017.

If anything, Jihan and others wanted a backup against the plan of Lightning Network which threatened to alter the economic fundamentals of Bitcoin. It was to push through this LN agenda that the community had already been split by Blockstream and their social media control.

There was exactly zero realistic chance of a POW change to Bitcoin BTC resulting in anything but another insignificant altcoin. The 'btcpowupdate' crowd never got much real support from any serious Bitcoin enterprises.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

If anything, Jihan and others wanted a backup against the plan of Lightning Network which threatened to alter the economic fundamentals of Bitcoin. It was to push through this LN agenda that the community had already been split by Blockstream and their social media control.

There was exactly zero realistic chance of a POW change to Bitcoin BTC resulting in anything but another insignificant altcoin. The 'btcpowupdate' crowd never got much real support from any serious Bitcoin enterprises.

That seems like a Jihan's public relation speech.

I don't see why Jihan would care so much about Lightning or "social media control by Blockstream".

But I understand very deeply why he would care about Bitmain's competitive advantage being wipe out overnight. It's an unacceptable risk for any businesses. Even if the risk is <5%, you care a lot and you search for solutions.

 

[freetrader]

I don't see why Jihan would care so much about Lightning

Then I guess you missed a lot of the previous years' discussions about Lightning.

Maybe, just maybe, some miners actually believe in Bitcoin's original design and that it could work as a global p2p cash system.

 

[sickpig]

Ignoring people is stupid. I read usenet for 10+ years and I think my killfile was 5 lines, only one of which was an actual poster

Agreed. FWIW my ignore list on this forum is empty.

Was just trying to help. Just wanted to mention that If he *really* want to ignore a moderator, he could it with a little extra effort.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Then I guess you missed a lot of the previous years' discussions about Lightning.

Maybe, just maybe, some miners actually believe in Bitcoin's original design and that it could work as a global p2p cash system.

I don't think Jihan believe in something else than his narrow self-interest. And I don't think Lightning is so obviously at odds with his narrow self-interest. And I don't see why Jihan should care more about a "global p2p cash system" than the increase of Bitmain's profit margin, that would actually be a business mistake.

He didn't want to start a hashwar in the summer 2017 because he wasn't so clear about the conviction that Lightning was detrimental to his profit margin (it's not because the subject has been discussed that it becomes an indisputable fact). He is like everyone else, he doesn't know the future and he doesn't mind having his options open.
And above all, he could have lost everything with a fork of the hash function because their was a real risk that fanatic Core folks would have done exactly that had he resisted SW deployment any longer.

The creation of Bitcoin Cash was perfectly rational from his point of view. It allows to explore onchain scaling and offchain scaling while providing him a hash function back up. But that doesn't come from a strong conviction regarding "p2p cash". He is no more than a (brilliant) businessman that is playing chess.
At some point his narrow self-interest no longer converge with the best outcome for Bitcoin. And the market should clear him from the way.

 

[bitsko]

thank you @sickpig

being quoted evinces im not on unilateral ignore.

I wont be ignoring anyone myself as I find it contrary to my ideals.(i just didnt want to see messages from someone who stated they are ignoring me)

"Maybe, just maybe, some miners actually believe in Bitcoin's original design and that it could work as a global p2p cash system"

I think so too @freetrader, just that i'm not thinking of the miners who maintain their primary interests elsewhere and keep the not-bitcoin bitcoin as a minority hedge. Clearly they would have tested nakamoto consensus when BU had a large percentage of hashrate signalling for it.

Ironically now that BCH would be best served by moving away from a work function with known economic attacks, perhaps Jihan can use SV for his hedge and allow BCH to get out from underneath its impending SHA256d based death sentence.

 

[Mengerian]

We have BCH now controlled by ABC and allies and on a mission to alienate more of the community with continued rapid protocol changes.

Funny, I always perceived ABC as more conservative and "middle of the road" in terms of how much change they were proposing. I saw ABC as positioned between BU which favored adding features and making more changes to the the protocol (eg. Group, DSV), and nChain wanting no changes, "freeze the protocol".

where the hell is @Mengerian btw?

I'm around, why do you ask?

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."

People keep talking about what "ABC devs think" as if they are mind reading.

Similar with Ryan X Charles today who said ABC "wants to" reduce block times.

In both instances, I think the mind reading off the mark. There's this myth that ABC people are trying to shove changes through. The main thing ABC has advocated is trying to make the upgrade process predictable, so that the ecosystem can plan and minimize disruption. Obviously that didn't really work out this time, but it was the goal.

I know people probably think I'm always defending ABC. No person or project will do everything perfectly, but instead of criticizing, I think it's more fruitful to either help them fix the shortcomings. So I try to help ABC in areas where I can, like writing articles, and helping coordinate things like specifications. If people want to build up other projects, and try to do a better job than ABC, I think that's great also. What is not helpful is criticizing, bashing, and complaining that the people trying to build things aren't doing it perfectly.

 

[go1111111]

The main thing ABC has advocated is trying to make the upgrade process predictable, so that the ecosystem can plan and minimize disruption

The approach seems careless and too risky to me. You can say that forking every 6 months is "predictable", but the content of the forks is way more important than the fact that there's a fork. If you put in rushed changes that haven't been thoroughly reviewed, it doesn't matter that people knew that *some* hard fork was coming at the time when this particular one happens.

I haven't followed the ABC stuff closely, but I've seen lots of complains from other BCH folks of Amaury being difficult to work with and being bad at cooperation.

What is not helpful is criticizing, bashing, and complaining that the people trying to build things aren't doing it perfectly

I disagree. To the extent that Amaury and other BCH devs are too reckless and care too little about building consensus for their changes, we should complain about it. It's not like the complaints aren't actionable. The clear action being requested was to delay the fork. Complaining about it helps build consensus in the BCH community that more people should push back on ABC and not go along with their future rushed changes.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

But they do go along. And now is the time to start focusing on the next, this chapter is done.

 

[bitsko]

'The clear action being requested was to delay the fork.'

the primary objective of the fork was too important.

 

[molecular]

I used to think that recirculating lost coins was wrong, but then I found out that the "just add decimals" is a myth and low numbers of bitcoins in circulation lowers utility. I myself lost a lot of bitcoins, so it's better to raise all boats than have big boats stuck in mud.

This is ridiculous. Why does a "low number of coins" reduce utility? Because you can't divide a satoshi? Of course we can add decimals, oh wait. on BCH we can, on BSV I guess you're stuck. Too bad it's unlikely either of those coins will ever *have* to.

 

[Dusty]

Mmm where did all that economic activity go to? Who cares about the velocity of money, right?

Most people I know stopped to transact on the BCH network in fear to lose the corresponding coins in the BSV chain. They're waiting for replay protection by wallets and/or BSV folks.
[doublepost=1543845236][/doublepost]

there's even a pwuille post i've referenced in the past where he flat out admits that the proliferation of custom scripts for various smart contract uses in BTC decreases fungibility as each new set creates custom tracking markers and dilutes the security by obscurity value of a more unified currency use.

That's not exactly true, but it's true that using "strange" or non-standard scripts will totally destroy privacy because every time you spend your coins you'll leave a very clear trace in the blockchain.

That's why inventions like taproot/graftroot should be welcome: awesome increase of privacy together with awesome space saving. We could use very long scripts without having to (completely) disclose them each time we spend money.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Most people I know stopped to transact on the BCH network in fear to lose the corresponding coins in the BSV chain. They're waiting for replay protection by wallets and/or BSV folks.

@torusJKL wrote a good article about SV not adding relay protection. I agree.

 

[wrstuv31]

This is ridiculous. Why does a "low number of coins" reduce utility? Because you can't divide a satoshi? Of course we can add decimals, oh wait. on BCH we can, on BSV I guess you're stuck. Too bad it's unlikely either of those coins will ever *have* to.

Partisan sniping aside...

If I have horded 1M coins, and everyone else burns/loses theirs until the rest of you are splitting 1 coin to capture the worlds economy. My 1M coins are worthless now, I can only really sell 0.0001 of them without disrupting anything.

 

[cypherdoc]

well, here you have it:


maybe the lesson is, don't over invest yourself in complicated code to the point where getting it in becomes more important than the community itself. same applies to GROUP. it doesn't matter if nChain "agreed" to CTOR/DSV in the beginning of the year. as a sophisticated game theoretic dev, you need to be extremely suspicious of ppl or other groups changing their minds as market conditions change at the last minute. in fact, you should expect it. we're talking money here with which ppl/groups are extremely vicious/fickle. there are no promises in Bitcoin for your pet project. this is why changes need to be exceedingly simple, rare, or frozen at the base protocol layer. like removing a constant or a limit.

 

[8up]

Knowing very well, that posts like this are a sign of "the bottom is in". I'll do it anyway, because it's not about the price. I could have written something similar last year. What was different back then is, that there was still hope that BCH will carry on the torch. Not so now.

The Bitcoin (Cash) project is dead and almost no one has realized it (yet). Bitcoin for me was about getting sound money and power in the hands of the many. And in that one thing it miserably failed.

The space is captured and fractured. I don't see any value in exchanging the old fiat establishment for a new crypto one. And that is why I'll stop recommending to invest in Bitcoin. I even start to see the benefits of fiat.

I capitulated ideologically. It's either time to move on or to change my attitude towards crypto.

Good riddance.

 

[cypherdoc]

grinding higher:

[doublepost=1543858659][/doublepost]@8up

>I capitulated ideologically. It's either time to move on or to change my attitude towards crypto.

ignoring the SV chart is unwise, imo. the return to the "original vision" is more than just a meme.

 

[cypherdoc]

SV about to run down ABC again; w/o even trying:


one thing that i know is unsustainable is the repurposing of BTC mercenary hash to protect against even a minimal <10 block reorg and maintain a blockchain height lead. it's totally inconsistent with an impending IPO due to the accumulating financial losses; which btw i think is now doomed. poor Bitmain: