Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

So, the exchanges who didn't like checkpoints, consulted you and changed the consensus rules to include checkpoints?

Feel free to say what actually happened, @Peter R.

 

[wrstuv31]

Why would you want to participate in an economy where the engine is transaction processors and not those producing goods and services?

Those producing goods and services can choose to transact in other currencies. Miners cannot, they have the most skin in the game and are ultimately responsible for creating the economy that values the fruits of their labor.

And why would you want to put a floor on their fees instead of let them compete to drive down expenses? Why not just limit block space if you want to artificially prop up the fee market?

I want there to be free txs in each block, where the large txs pay most of the subsidy and simple payments are essentially free. This won't happen with a limited blockspace, or with infinitely divisible units.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc:

@reina added the characters "(in adding checkpoints" to my quote. I never said those words and adding them to my quote changes the meaning of what I said. I was not involved in adding checkpoints.

But why is this bad? Many exchanges did dislike the checkpoints. Yes, I do think they were a mistake in hindsight (but I understand why it was done at the time).

what this demonstrates is that ABC devs and their supporters, contrary to how the socialists believe we should learn from multiple, freetraded shitcoins blooming, are either incapable of learning, or worse yet, unwilling to learn. i was the one in the entire community who brought up the storied history of Solidcoin & RealSolid in their vain attempt to use multiple, rolling checkpoints in a defense of their shitcoin. this was right after the initial checkpoint after the ABC/SV hardfork in attempt to educate and caution ABC esp when i heard they were considering rolling checkpoints. i was the one who reviewed why Solidcoin failed here, on Reddit and on Twitter in an attempt to educate. i was the one who quoted pwuille on Stack Exchange as to the valid reasoning as to why checkpoints were deprecated in BTC, the last one in 2014. i emphasize i b/c you saw it all happen right here and can make no excuses about not being warned. does ABC learn? no. you guys call my cautions spam.

this is why cross chain mining attacks, or at least the threat of them and their potential to cause loss of money for the devs, should not be vilified; b/c not only are they an integral part of our history, they are the only real concensus hammer or threat to snuff out bad behavior, and quickly, before too many ordinary ppl lose money. when it comes to money, the temptation to make a quick buck thru multiple, blooming, freetraded, scamming shitcoins is altogether too tempting to the point where learning from the past, or from multiple blooming shitcoins, is simply ignored. there is no shortage of overweening voluntaryist devs in the crypto space who are greedy and dishonest.

 

[Peter R]

So, the exchanges who didn't like checkpoints, consulted you and changed the consensus rules to include checkpoints?

Feel free to say what actually happened, @Peter R.

Reina made up the part where "exchanges consulted me about checkpoints." This never happened. She is taking quotes out of context and making up a story that doesn't make sense, and then complaining that it doesn't make sense.

What happened was that exchanges were worried about double-spend risk from re-org attacks by CSW. Checkpoints were added to defend against this. More than just ABC were aware of what was happening (e.g., I was aware).

 

[Zarathustra]

This from the guys that call everyone they dislike "socialist".

Satoshi's vision my ass.

Most austrians are pro government. Pro small government. Aren't you?
There is no such thing as anarcho capitalism in the real world. Never happened anywhere at any times.

 

[Peter R]

@cypherdoc

Indeed, there is communal memory of attacks due to rolling checkpoints.

 

[cypherdoc]

and it is a negative one

 

[Windowly]

Reina made up the part where "exchanges consulted me about checkpoints." This never happened. She is taking quotes out of context and making up a story that doesn't make sense, and then complaining that it doesn't make sense.

What happened was that exchanges were worried about double-spend risk from re-org attacks by CSW. Checkpoints were added to defend against this. More than just ABC were aware of what was happening (e.g., I was aware).

It seems like perhaps the disagreement is what 'consulting' is. Or did you never talk to exchanges about checkpoints? Or did ABC folks talk to you about exchanges and checkpoints?

 

[Norway]

More than just ABC were aware of what was happening (e.g., I was aware).

This cloak-and-dagger shenanigans where insiders change consensus rules in secret is a very good reason to freeze the protocol.

 

[Peter R]

and it is a negative one

Yes, agreed.

It seems like perhaps the disagreement is what 'consulting' is. Or did you never talk to exchanges about checkpoints? Or did ABC folks talk to you about exchanges and checkpoints?

I never talked to exchanges about checkpoints.

There was an intense and decentralized effort by numerous members of the BCH community to defend against the threatened re-org attacks by CSW. I think part of the confusion is because people think "Camp ABC" exists over there, and "Camp BU" exists over here, and "Camp Kraken" exists over yonder. Really it's just a bunch of people and a whole bunch of mixed communication channels. No one has all the information but everyone is trying to work together to make the best decisions for bitcoin.

I think the situation was handled well. Everyone I interacted with was working hard for the best interests of bitcoin. The biggest mistake we made IMO was allowing the situation to escalate to the point where re-org attacks were a serious threat. I think BIP135 would have prevented this entire mess.

 

[majamalu]

There is no such thing as anarcho capitalism in the real world. Never happened anywhere at any times.

"There is no such thing as a slavery free society in the real world. Never happened anywhere at any times", people like you used to say before the end of slavery in most of the civilized world.

In any case, one thing is to identify yourself as a minarchist; another, very different, is to say that you are "government friendly" -- and supportive of DHS meddling in peaceful activities -- while accusing everyone that is not aligned with you of being a socialist.

 

[cypherdoc]

what this demonstrates is that ABC devs and their supporters, contrary to how the socialists believe we should learn from multiple, freetraded shitcoins blooming, are either incapable of learning, or worse yet, unwilling to learn. i was the one in the entire community who brought up the storied history of Solidcoin & RealSolid in their vain attempt to use multiple, rolling checkpoints in a defense of their shitcoin. this was right after the initial checkpoint after the ABC/SV hardfork in attempt to educate and caution ABC esp when i heard they were considering rolling checkpoints. i was the one who reviewed why Solidcoin failed here, on Reddit and on Twitter in an attempt to educate. i was the one who quoted pwuille on Stack Exchange as to the valid reasoning as to why checkpoints were deprecated in BTC, the last one in 2014. i emphasize i b/c you saw it all happen right here and can make no excuses about not being warned. does ABC learn? no. you guys call my cautions spam.

this is why cross chain mining attacks, or at least the threat of them and their potential to cause loss of money for the devs, should not be vilified; b/c not only are they an integral part of our history, they are the only real concensus hammer or threat to snuff out bad behavior, and quickly, before too many ordinary ppl lose money. when it comes to money, the temptation to make a quick buck thru multiple, blooming, freetraded, scamming shitcoins is altogether too tempting to the point where learning from the past is simply ignored. there is no shortage of overweening voluntaryist devs in the crypto space who are greedy and dishonest.

as an example, look at this back and forth tome i had with @jtoomim. he argues with me forever, never giving an inch while continually making excuses for the 10 block rolling "finalization" (pseudonym for checkpoints) as originally proposed by ABC. and what happens just a couple short days later? he comes out with his own proposal for a modified checkpoint scheme admitting that the original ABC was perhaps flawed. such intellectual dishonesty the likes of which i am appalled.


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9zrmtx/a_better_antireorg_algorithm_using_firstseen/

 

[wrstuv31]

I never talked to exchanges about checkpoints.

 

[Peter R]

@cypherdoc

I'm getting so sick of people going after all these excellent people in the bitcoin community. @jtoomim is a huge asset to bitcoin. He has done so much, from meeting with Chinese miners and performing the "Block Size Olympics" to help convince the world that Bitcoin could handle larger blocks, to patiently explaining nuanced technical ideas to the community, to analyzing stress test data, running a bitcoin mine, donating to BU, and so much more!

And YOU TOO are a huge asset to bitcoin! You have a great intuition, you focus on what's important (better money for the world), and you help us technical people snap out of it when we fall too deeply down the "devs-gotta-dev" rabbit hole.

We need all of these different people, with their different ideas, all pulling bitcoin in their own directions. The pull forces all balance each other out and we move forward in a direction that actually makes sense. If we're divided instead, we'll all fall down the cliffs we don't see (but the others do).

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R it's not his technical contributions, it's his economic interpretations of them.

 

[Peter R]

We all have our different economic views. E.g., I know I sit somewhere between you and Toomim with respect to block size. Jtoomim is worried about centralization risk due to the orphan-rate advantage a large miner has over a small miner, whereas I am not. While you seem to believe that miners should try to accept arbitrarily-large blocks, even if it may crash their node, whereas I think it is better if miners agree to a max block size far above demand but that their systems can process.

And we're all miles away from the BS/Core crowd who think every bitcoin user should be able to validate all the world's transactions on a raspberry-pi or iPhone.

But I think working with the tension is better than just splitting off on our own chains. We're trying to make money for the world, not for our little peer group who share our technological and economic ideologies.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Jtoomin is an asset, but in case of the fork he was very supportive of doing the very wrong thing. I said to most ABC people multiple times that another party's behavior is no excuse for doing the wrong thing.

Bip135 would have been a way to prevent this. Delaying the fork by mining classic would have been another. (plz, don't make me again expand on the role of Wipeout protection)

One problem jtoomim represents is the inability to admit being wrong and to take non-technical factors into account.

I have never seen a major coin that much destroyed by the market as bch these days. Is it too much to demand a bit of 'sorry, we wracked the ship' and self-reflection?

This destructive mindset has brought us where we are, and it will continue bringing bch down. But since I see no sense in two big block bitcoins and prefer bsv, I'm OK with this...

 

[Zarathustra]

@majamalu

> "There is no such thing as a slavery free society in the real world. Never happened anywhere at any times", people like you used to say before the end of slavery in most of the civilized world. In any case, one thing is to identify yourself as a minarchist;

Slavery did not end in the civilized world according to anarchists and minarchists. Wikipedia describes very good what 'civilization' means:

A civilization or civilisation (see English spelling differences) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification imposed by a cultural elite, symbolic systems of communication (for example, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment.

Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labour, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming and expansionism.

> another, very different, is to say that you are "government friendly" -- and supportive of DHS meddling in peaceful activities -- while accusing everyone that is not aligned with you of being a socialist.

The market was regulated from the outset by the government (church and state / organized violence). In fact the market and the economy have been created by organized violence (priests and war lords). I support those who want to overcome the state. But I know that the consequence of overcoming the state is the overcome of the society and the economy: Back to independent and self-sufficient communities.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

But I don't want to focus on all the negativity. I prefer positives and building.

My (very biased) perspective on the fork made me explore bsv apps like moneybutton, handcash and Keyport. And heck, they are amazing. This is the user experience I was waiting for since 2013. Combine it with bitdb and the concept of Craig's metanet (not that I understand more than a fraction of it) and you have an awesome vision where big block bitcoin can head for.

 

[Zarathustra]

@cypherdoc

I'm getting so sick of people going after all these excellent people in the bitcoin community. @jtoomim is a huge asset to bitcoin. He has done so much, from meeting with Chinese miners and performing the "Block Size Olympics" to help convince the world that Bitcoin could handle larger blocks, to patiently explaining nuanced technical ideas to the community, to analyzing stress test data, running a bitcoin mine, donating to BU, and so much more!

And YOU TO are a huge asset to bitcoin! You have a great intuition, you focus on what's important (better money for the world), and you help us technical people snap out of it when we fall too deeply down the "devs-gotta-dev" rabbit hole.

We need all of these different people, with their different ideas, all pulling bitcoin in their own directions. The pull forces all balance each other out and we move forward in a direction that actually makes sense. If we're divided instead, we'll all fall down the cliffs we don't see (but the others do).

And YOU TOO are a huge asset to bitcoin!, @Peter R, despite your constant mockery of some different people and fighters on the big block side.

"You are all different!"