Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

Bitcoin.de did not enable deposits / withdrawl with BSV, but allows trading with coins which have been in the accounts.

One hour ago, 3 BSV have been traded for 249 Euro each. While BCH is at 90 Euro.

https://www.bitcoin.de/de/bsveur/trade/neueste-transaktionen

 

[freetrader]

When will you start to learn?

nChain and friends appear to be honest with their goals,

I don't quite agree with you.
[doublepost=1544179851][/doublepost]BUIP introduced:
BUIP106: License Bitcoin Unlimited software under GPLv3

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip106-license-bitcoin-unlimited-software-under-gplv3.23148/

 

[Zarathustra]

I've already seen central banks, I know I have nothing to seek there. I'll gladly spit on that building next time I'm in London.

Great, spit twice! One for you and one for me.

As for why you're marching in fours with convicted scammers and frauds who serve those buildings, ... I'll let you figure it out, "Zarathustra".

Who convicted whom? The convictor in chief, the "I fully support core" u/contrarian? How much of a hypocritical fraud does someone have to be to fully support the mother of all frauds and at the same time constantly giving lectures in ethics? That obsessed agitator has been applauded all the time by the majority of the ABC supporters, dear "freetrader". We can't choose between Jesus and Buddha. It seems we have to choose between Calvin's Coingeek and The People's Republic of China, if this Graph is accurate:

 

[molecular]

Bitcoin.de did not enable deposits / withdrawl with BSV, but allows trading with coins which have been in the accounts.

One hour ago, 3 BSV have been traded for 249 Euro each. While BCH is at 90 Euro.

https://www.bitcoin.de/de/bsveur/trade/neueste-transaktionen

you might be pretty close to preople from the bitcoin.de team (I don't know). What's the rationale to keep deposits/withdrawals closed for so long. There's only 35 BSV on the sell side of the book, it's a completely distorted market because no BSV can get in yet FIAT has no throttle. I find this concerning. Poor souls buying at these prices, probably unaware of the situation (I know there's info right ther on-page about deposits/withdrawals being disabled, but you know people: many ignore this info or don't get the implications).

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@molecular

Like with everything at Bitcoin.de - security first. There is a reason why Bitcoin.de survives since mid 2011. Deposits and withdrawls are planned for next week.

Edit: Might be interesting for you:
https://bitcoinblog.de/2018/12/07/das-flippening-bitcoin-sv-ueberholt-bitcoin-cash-waehrend-der-rest-des-marktes-blutet/
If you have feedback, maybe that I'm too biased and unfair, please give me a short notice. I'm willing to correct myself.

 

[freetrader]

 

[sickpig]

what makes you say that? in fact, when I say it's getting ugly, I mean that I don't like ugly things or outcomes. these lawsuits are likely to hurt the space more than anything.

I'm not happy at all, i'm just very pragmatic on how the world currently works.

@cypherdoc, @lunar I'm so glad that mine was a misinterpretation of your view of the current situation.

you do realize my respect for many of the voluntaryist devs in this space, other than like you

Appreciated.

did I mention (i did) that I've not hedged either way between ABC and SV coins? I'm completely financially neutral there and my arguments stem purely from ideology and experience and what I think is best long term for the true Bitcoin.

This is the wise thing to do. As Daniel Krawisz since you don't know the feature the best things to do is to remain neutral.

The hard truth, is you can't break the law. They have guns.

Thing is that at best they a have allegedly broke the law. Or at list this what the plaintiff thinks happened.

IANAL but on my book I don't see how changing the code to keep your chain alive in the short term is different from removing the reply protection with the aim of "killing" the other chain.

Both sides changed to achieve their own goal. Am I missing something?

 

[molecular]

different context, same story:

(listen to first minute)


"This Is All A Game,It’s Meant To Divide Us,We Need To Come Together Before It’s To Late:G Mannarino"

 

[Otaci]

IANAL but on my book I don't see how changing the code to keep your chain alive in the short term is different from removing the reply protection with the aim of "killing" the other chain.

Both sides changed to achieve their own goal. Am I missing something?

This meme really has gone on for too long. Bitcoin SV did not "remove replay protection". What we removed was the Automatic Replay Protection, a feature described here which has only been implemented by ABC (not by BU or XT). This feature has also been described as the "time bomb" in the ABC implementation which ensures that out-of-date ABC implementations become inoperable on the main chain at the time of the upgrade.

Replay protection is a feature you add, not remove.

 

[Zarathustra]

Don't worry BABies, Calvin's wallet is already empty. Satoshi's Vision will collapse tomorrow. Those poker experts are really that stupid:

 

[cypherdoc]

@Otaci

Yeah, thanks for reminding us of that. that's how I understood it to work.

 

[Norway]

Don't worry BABies, Calvin's wallet is already empty. Satoshi's Vision will collapse tomorrow. Those poker experts are really that stupid:

Yeah, I'd like to bet 1 BSV against @imaginary_username on the price new years eve.
If BSV holds a higher USD price than BCH, I win.
If BCH holds a higher USD price than BSV, he wins.

We agree on an escrow to hold the two BSV.

EDIT: We should bet 1 BSV and 1 BCH each to make the bet symmetrical.

 

[sickpig]

@Otaci

This meme really has gone on for too long. Bitcoin SV did not "remove replay protection". What we removed was the Automatic Replay Protection, a feature described here which has only been implemented by ABC (not by BU or XT)

Yeah this what I meant, removing automatic replay protection (ARP). Thanks for correcting me.

I got confused because I was reading the commit message that actually remove ARP. In fact the subject of such commit was "Remove replay protection functionality"

Now maybe I'm wrong but w/o that change, transactions produced by ABC/XT/BU would't have been valid for SV 0.1.0

Am I correct?

 

[freetrader]

Steve Shadders, Technical Director of the Bitcoin SV project, explains:

One aspect of stability is replay protection. Since ABC has not made this stability a priority, Bitcoin SV will do so in order to confidence to users and businesses on both chains. This change will require the Bitcoin SV team to work with the Bitcoin ecosystem, and the timeline will be announced when there is adequate ecosystem readiness.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181126124708/https://coingeek.com/original-bitcoin-reborn-bitcoin-sv-bsv-bch-hash-war-ends/

ABC did actually make this feature a priority, when it implemented the ARP so that the non-upgraded versions (or forks) of its software would automatically be replay-protected vis-a-vis the existing BCH network.

BSV removed this, thereby removing an automatic replay protection which it could have obtained.

Bitcoin Cash clients also prioritized replay protection when they implemented the original August 2017 fork, knowing that they possessed a minority of hashpower.

BSV ignored warnings about not possessing majority hashpower, and apparently wanted to prove a point about what a great event a "hash war" without replay protection would be. Everyone with a bit of common sense and experience told them it would result in a chain split anyway, and at that point replay protection would become de facto available and widely used via new coinbases. As it turns out this was exactly what happened. Eleven days after the above blog post, and no sight of a replay protection patch or even an announcement of the timeline for the BSV ecosystem.

Apparently their Chief Scientist and chief bankroller didn't get the memo leading up to the fork, and their developers also failed to prepare for this contingency - so here we are. At this point, they should bear a lot of responsibility for the "mess" which Calvin Ayre now tries to blame on others.

 

[sickpig]

Yeah, thanks for reminding us of that. that's how I understood it to work.

I don't think this how it worked, thou.

Without this change as soon as the median timestamp of the previous 11 blocks would have been greater than or equal to 1542300000, SV would had signed and verified transaction in a different manner, not compatible with ABC/BU/XT.

1542300000 is equivalent Thu Nov 15 16:40:00 UTC 2018.

So yes, SV has been changed so that SV transactions would have been replied on ABC/BU/XT chain and vice versa.

The removal of ARS was partial, they left on the code all the infrastructure and remove just the innermost bit of logic, so that you can still have the chance to look at the code at current master w/o the need of tinkering with git commands. You could start from here https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L624

 

[Otaci]

The removal of the Automatic Replay Protection has the same effect as this change from ABC, except it is permanent. A change of this nature is implemented in ABC every time the software is updated to support the next upgrade.

Implementing a time-bomb in software is not an approach I agree with.

 

[freetrader]

This is a good read even if the QAnon thing bypassed you entirely.
There are many parallels and I think good reason to post in this thread.

https://violentmetaphors.com/2018/12/04/your-q-anon-exit-briefing/

 

[freetrader]

Implementing a time-bomb in software is not an approach I agree with.

Otherwise, you're ok with attacking other chains, trying to do deep re-org on blockchains, defraud exchanges?

Because that's what the guy you work for announced as his objectives for this hash war.

 

[cypherdoc]

that "guy" hasnt done any of those things. why do you persist in pretending he has? and given the pending lawsuit against the true manipulators who hired mercenary hash, coordinated anti reorg protection strategies with exchanges, and inserted the equivalent of moral hazard in the form of rolling checkpoints, do you honestly think he would attack ABC at this point? I don't.

instead you refuse to entertain the distinct possibility you got played, distracted, and panicked into committing self suicide by a real game theorist.
[doublepost=1544211144,1544210326][/doublepost]Btw, all these new risks still exist in ABC as a result of the self inflicted moral hazard afaik:

https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/

 

[majamalu]

If you appeal to the "4d chess" explanation to make sense of every move, don't rule out the possibility that you are the pawn.