Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Why should I appeal to that when the facts are nchain didn't do a thing? 4D chess is merely an explanation and isn't a necessary condition for the facts.

 

[AdrianX]

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.

You subconsciously know what's going on, Effectively people are arguing over whos chain, is it.

There is nothing wrong if defending your chain when it is your chain. The question is whos chain is it?

Is it @deadalnix's and @freetrader's chain or is it the investor's chain, or is it the miner's chain, or does it belong to the exchanges or the miners who initiated the split?

Does it belong to the majority of miners who secured over 70% of the blocks for weeks before the attack, or is the chain like a public good, belonging to everyone who's contributed to building it is some way?


The likes of @freetrader and Chris Pacia seem to know who's in charge and who should be split out, which agreements are important and which are not.

I have considered the chain as being our history, not yours or theirs. It's nothing else, but a collective ours. The rules that govern who can and can't wright to that chain are defined in the white paper. Not a git hub or closed-door meetings that exclude people. Any needed rules can be added by One CPU one Vote. I'd expected it to be understood to work in the same way as a democratic vote. Where you vote before the election not make the change after and then brute force the outcome. (The later only an option, given Bitcoin Cash was a minority fork, and the former understood as obvious in the absence of a majority pool of hashrate.)

When people tell me "We have an agreement to change the consensus rules" I am sickened to my core.

"We" in the context of the Bitcoin Blockchain includes me, and when I'm told "We have agreed to change it on X date" and I express that "we" don't have agreement to change the rules" I know empirically I'm not part of the "We".

The moment I realized the people represented by this image colluded to change the rules that govern "our chain". And after the fact felt it necessary to defend their chain from "our contributors", is when I realized it's not "our chain" but their chain.

I empathize with those who had invested in "our chain" only to realize it's a result of a "your" grace (the proverbial other not looking at anyone one other than those who advocated and worked to create a split).

I definitely don't feel like deluding myself into believing the BCH ABC chain is our chain, it's not, it belongs to the efforts of those who forced the split. Any authority that has the right split people off deserves whatever is coming their way.

The SV chain is not much different, however, it's a lot more honest as to whos chain it is, they at least on the surface are committed to preserving the rules that gave me the confidence to invest in the first place.

 

[Fatman3002]

So what's happening here? Is this a BSV place or a ABC place now?

 

[freetrader]

So what's happening here? Is this a BSV place or a ABC place now?

Both, neither, a battlefield of ideas.

The likes of @freetrader and Chris Pacia seem to know who's in charge and who should be split out, which agreements are important and which are not.

Placeholding this for a fuller answer to you tomorrow, @AdrianX . As someone who's been in Bitcoin for a long time, I think you know the answer as well as Chris or I do, but I'll explain my perspective.

 

[majamalu]

Satoshi's Bitcoin was not created to circumvent market regulation

Sure, governments will end up adopting BSV because of some legal technicality. It has never happened that a ruler who owes his power to the violation of the non-aggression principle changes the rules according to his changing needs.

 

[cypherdoc]

hey @majamalu did you dump all your BSV? i realize it's none of my biz but in your specific case i'd be seriously interested in knowing. i wouldn't troll you about it if you did. and i did tell everyone my position.

 

[Tomothy]

Defence? What is there to defend?

The idea that making code changes to your github repository is somehow unlawful is preposterous. Further, the reason for the changes was to guard against double-spend reorg attacks on exchanges that CSW threatened.

It’s like a burglar suing a homeowner for installing a lock on his door after the burglar threatened to rob the place. “You had no lock on your door when I first cased the joint!!1!”

So this is kind of interesting, but I think a better example is as opposed to locking your door, setting more active preventive measures of preventing a robbery / burglar.

The law is a funny beast. Like if you use a spring-gun, i.e., a shotgun rigged to the door and trip wire so when trespasser or thief breaks in to take your stuff, gun goes off killing them there are ramifications. Likewise if you used a bear trap and they're gravely injured. You could be charged with something as severe as manslaughter or they may have a negligent suit against you.

Although you were simply protecting your assets, the legal ramifications can be damning. I fear if this doesnt get thrown out and gets into discovery or worse yet goes to a trial this will be unpleasant. I wouldn't want to know how this particular sausage was made nor do I think discussing it anywhere makes sense.

 

[Norway]

Great doublespend experiment here:
https://honest.cash/reizu/making-double-spending-0-conf-with-bitcoin-sv-117/

But as usual, this smart idiot wants to change the protocol because he doesn't understand the incentives in bitcoin. And no surprise, he seem to have an issue with CSW.

Here is my solution to the problem:

 

[majamalu]

hey @majamalu did you dump all your BSV? i realize it's none of my biz but in your specific case i'd be seriously interested in knowing. i wouldn't troll you about it if you did. and i did tell everyone my position.

I'm keeping most of my BSV (98%) for the same reason I kept most of my BTC (70%):

The State has shown an amazing ability to adapt for thousands of years. I wouldn't be surprised to see the bad guys win once more, and if they win I want a share of the spoils, if only to continue fighting them in the next battle.

 

[go1111111]

that "guy" hasnt done any of those things

freetrader said that he announced those things as his objectives (which he did), not that he did them.

In most situations if a person says "I'm going to do X", then it's a reasonable inference that they think doing X is OK, or would have been OK, even if they don't end up doing X.

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.

If you're looking for someone to bet on this, I'm interested. I'd prefer a longer time horizon though because it seems Ayre is willing to lose a lot of money pumping SV. How about January 31st? It also seems cumbersome dealing with BSV coins. What if we use a 'neutral' currency like BTC or ETH or ZEC?

 

[Zarathustra]

Sure, governments will end up adopting BSV because of some legal technicality. It has never happened that a ruler who owes his power to the violation of the non-aggression principle changes the rules according to his changing needs.

What do you mean with "adopting BSV"? They will be forced to allow the production and trade of BSV. Government is a tool that has been created by the swarm. That swarm allows (via that tool) grain, gold, cars to be traded on public markets.
On some places the swarm started to enforce Cannabis to be allowed on the markets. The swarm does not (yet) enforce the same rules for Heroin or Plutonium. @lunar explained it very well. If Satoshi had designed Bitcoin with more features for anonymous agitation, the swarm would not have adopted it, for similar reasons it didn't adopt free trade of plutonium.

 

[freetrader]

What do you mean with "adopting BSV"? They will be forced to allow the production and trade of BSV.

Zarathustra, you're channeling Calvin again.

 

[Zarathustra]

You answered before I paid for your attention.
If anybody's channeling someone on the subject of state/anarchy/patriarchy/swarm behavior etc., it's Calvin who would have to do it with me. Craig blocked me on Twitter when I explained him the history of anarchy. I told him that anarchy is not bullshit. Anarcho capitalism is bullshit; there he is wright. But anarchy is very good. It means self-sufficiency (= no state, no market, no economy). The consensus rules in anarchist environments have been freezed for more than 100'000 years at version 0.1, which resulted in zero production growth in 100'000 years.
I dont share his enthusiasm for a prospering society, which he shares with most of you austrians. I just prefer capitalism over socialism. But anarchy would be better. It would preserve the planet. Patriarchy destroys it.

 

[sickpig]

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.

No, it does not.

Your change will make SV signature scheme compatible with ABC/BU/XT's forever. The change you linked just move the time bomb trigger further in the future, i.e. May '19.

Could you please say if the following statement is true or false?

Without commit 446b66ec3555f1e1e304c3f8a93a3e893896355b applied on SV, as of today SV and ABC/XT/BU signature scheme won't be compatible.

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

fair, but as I said above this is not the point.

 

[Otaci]

You're really reaching aren't you? Really trying to twist the story to suit your narrative. Good luck.

 

[sickpig]

@Otaci

seriously, I'm not trying to win an argument, win a debate or twisting the story.

I'm just trying to check if my logic is still working properly.

So please, would you mind saying if the following statement is true or false:

"Without commit 446b66ec3555f1e1e304c3f8a93a3e893896355b applied on SV, as of today SV and ABC/XT/BU signature scheme won't be compatible."

In my opinion the above is a true statement but this is irrelevant, I'm interested in your position on it.

If the statement above is true that means you proactively change the SV code so that SV's signature scheme would had been compatible with ABX/XT/BU even after Nov 15th fork activation.

If you think the statement above is false I would be honestly interested in knowing why this is the case.

 

[Norway]

Interesting how r/btc downvote common sense these days.


@go1111111
I suggest I bet 1 BSV and you bet 1 BCH (they are flip-flopping around parity now.) I don't want to store the bet in other shitcoins, as I don't think they have a future.

I agree to move the date to january 31st.

Maybe @lunar or @Bagatell volunteer as escrow?

Deal?

PS: There are multiple wallets for BSV.

 

[lunar]

@Norway nice call.


Also happy to be escrow if needed.

 

[79b79aa8]

gemini decided not to list BCHUSD because of fork uncertainty. at this point it does not seem to be a priority for them to list it anymore.

gemini has announced the listing of BCHUSD after all. i suppose the one common conclusion is that nobody can presume to tell how this will play out long term -- so the prudent move is to make revenue short term, keep your ponies in the race, and turn profits into fiat.

we'll see which useable coin has a working security model by the time of the next financial meltdown. at which point, however, you'll have to worry about the fiat revenue you saved.

 

[Peter R]

"Without commit 446b66ec3555f1e1e304c3f8a93a3e893896355b applied on SV, as of today SV and ABC/XT/BU signature scheme won't be compatible."

This is true (obviously). The SV codebase was changed in order to make it replayable on BCH.

One's justification for this action is orthogonal to the reality that the action was indeed taken, resulting in BSV being replayable on BCH.