Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

My hypothesis is that CSW and team wanted the SV transactions to be replayable on BCH, because they believed there would not be a split. If there was no split, the SV transactions would not have confirmed without having removed the replay protection. And so they intentionally removed the replay protection.

But CSW doesn't understand how mining works. The chains did split because the rulesets were mutually incompatible (that this would happen was obvious). Once it was obvious that there were indeed two chains, then replay protection became important and CSW and team now want it back.

Readers should go through Calvin Ayre's tweets the last month or so. I think it is obvious that he has a completely warped vision of how bitcoin works (e.g., he wants the two chains to "re-merge" somehow). I suspect this is because he listens to CSW who also has no clue about bitcoin at the technical level.

 

[Richy_T]

It's not an accounting system. It is a token system. It uses a fixed format for those tokens. The tokens themselves are placeholders and have no value to be subdivided. Adding to that fixed format will multiply the tokens.

You are incorrect. Please study how Bitcoin works. There are no tokens. It is a distributed ledger.
[doublepost=1544300582,1544299505][/doublepost]

How about January 31st?

How about April 1st? It's a bit far out but seems more appropriate

 

[Otaci]

"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.

At the time this change was made, the Bitcoin SV software followed the Bitcoin Cash consensus rules. So, the use of the word "replayable" is incorrect, it was a part of the Bitcoin Cash network.
[doublepost=1544301043][/doublepost]On November 15th, Bitcoin ABC made a fundamental change to the Bitcoin Cash consensus rules, resulting in a new coin, which I call Bitcoin ABC. I understand that many people prefer to call it Bitcoin Cash, however I think Bitcoin Cash died on November 15th.
[doublepost=1544301865,1544300931][/doublepost]An analogy: The ABC software has a built-in autopilot. For the 0.17 version, on the 15th of November that autopilot activates and forces the software to take a sharp right and drive off a cliff. For the 0.18 version, the date was changed to be 15 May 2019. Presumably a version 0.19 will be released before May which changes the date to 15 November 2019.

We removed the autopilot in Bitcoin SV.

 

[freetrader]

On November 15th, Bitcoin ABC made a fundamental change to the Bitcoin Cash consensus rules, resulting in a new coin, which I call Bitcoin ABC. I understand that many people prefer to call it Bitcoin Cash, however I think Bitcoin Cash died on November 15th.

The highlighted parts: that is called being in denial.
It's really healthier to move on.

It adds to the irony that you're posting this on BU's "home forum" knowing full well that the rules were implemented not only by the ABC client and not only at their say-so.

 

[Zarathustra]

My hypothesis is that CSW and team wanted the SV transactions to be replayable on BCH, because they believed there would not be a split. If there was no split, the SV transactions would not have confirmed without having removed the replay protection. And so they intentionally removed the replay protection.

But CSW doesn't understand how mining works. The chains did split because the rulesets were mutually incompatible (that this would happen was obvious). Once it was obvious that there were indeed two chains, then replay protection became important and CSW and team now want it back.

Readers should go through Calvin Ayre's tweets the last month or so. I think it is obvious that he has a completely warped vision of how bitcoin works (e.g., he wants the two chains to "re-merge" somehow). I suspect this is because he listens to CSW who also has no clue about bitcoin at the technical level.

@Peter R
Another attack on your enemy but no comment on @shadders' statement? What happened?

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1334#post-85845

 

[Peter R]

@Zarathustra

Stating facts is not an attack. There are pages and pages of quotes from the SV side and CSW in particular saying that there would be no split. Instead, the chains split on the first possible block. CSW does not understand how bitcoin works at a technical level.

 

[majamalu]

I dont share his enthusiasm for a prospering society

Are you writing from the deep jungle? Aren't computers a product of a prosper society?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Zarathustra

Stating facts is not an attack. There are pages and pages of quotes from the SV side and CSW in particular saying that there would be no split. Instead, the chains split on the first possible block. CSW does not understand how bitcoin works at a technical level.

I never took CSW's split comments from a technical level. I think he meant from an economic level and more longer term. for instance, I don't think we necessarily have a permanent split today as one chain may still fail completely. if two chains are still alive 3-6 mo into this, then yes, the split looks more permanent.

as an aside, are we still getting replayed tx's across chains? when I split my coins a few weeks ago, all SV tx's were immediately being replayed on ABC as nodes were still talking to each other.

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zarathustra

Stating facts is not an attack. There are pages and pages of quotes from the SV side and CSW in particular saying that there would be no split. Instead, the chains split on the first possible block. CSW does not understand how bitcoin works at a technical level.

It's weird that you don't comment @shadders' statement. That gives me the impression that he was stating facts.
[doublepost=1544335743][/doublepost]

Are you writing from the deep jungle? Aren't computers a product of a prosper society?

Yes, but you don't understand what I wrote. I don't share Craig's and the Austrian's enthusiasm for the so called 'progress' of the society (patriarchy). There is no real progress. It's degeneration and destruction.
It's obvious.

 

[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.

Craig is reading this forum. He tweeted:


Unfortunately you blocked me on twitter, so I have to answer here. You shouldn't block BSV supporters. I still prefer BSV over ABC. Blocking 80% of supporters is a hopeless strategy.
Jimmy, Shadders, Otaci are not doing that, and you too should not.

No Craig. What you have seen there is not anarchy. You have seen patriarchy/society/civilization/hyper-collectivism. You have seen failed states/failed societies, which is a tautology. Societies always fail and collapse eventually. You are right: anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron.
But anarchy is before civilization/beyond civilization. You would have to study the paleoliticum, the history of anarchy and patriarchy, or you would have to go deep into the rain forest to find last environments of anarchy and self-sufficiency. This species lived in anarchy for hundred thousands of years. Patriarchy/civilization/collectivism (church and state) has been installed 10'000 years ago when new consensus rules (organized violence) have been accepted. That was the birth of the tragedy. Since you've read Graeber, the great anthropologist, you should know that the leaders of the society define anarchy completely wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragments_of_an_Anarchist_Anthropology#Revolution_through_non-confrontation

update:

Shortly after this (my) comment, ProfFaustus' twitter account is no more public.
I think if Jimmy, shadders, Otaci, Ryan et al. can't convince him to change this self-destructive behavior, it's over.

 

[Peter R]

It's weird that you don't comment @shadders' statement. That gives me the impression that he was stating facts.

I only skimmed shadders comments (it was very long), but my impression was that he walked out to the field and started beating the same dead horse we beat last spring after nChain pulled BU's funding for the Gigablock project.

This was the statement I made at the time, which, after reading again today, is still all I have to say about the relationship with nChain and the termination of BU's funding for the Gigablock Testnet:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1172#post-62232

 

[Zarathustra]

> I only skimmed shadders comments (it was very long), but my impression was that he walked out to the field and started beating the same dead horse we beat last spring after nChain pulled BU's funding for the Gigablock project.

@Peter R
Digitsu linked to @shadders' comment. It was not very long.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1334#post-85845

 

[shadders]

@Otaci

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.

You really are stretching here @sickpig .

If we'd forked SV code from BU or XT instead of ABC this would be a non issue. In fact we could sit questioning why ABC made a code change to remove ARP.

So let me ask. Did ABC proactively make a code change in 0.18.x so that Abc's signature scheme would remain compatible with BU/XT/SV after November 15th?

See what I did there? There's really much better issues to try and win a point on than this one.

 

[Peter R]

The hash power majority was running ABC. The "consensus ruleset" as defined by the hash power majority was to add replay protection on November 15th. ABC removed that in its new release, and then so did BSV. Both implementations changed the consensus rule set as defined by what the hash power majority was running. SV changed the consensus ruleset in a way that made the transactions replayable.

The BSV side are the ones who seem to most strongly resonate with the idea that the rules are defined by the code the miners run.

 

[shadders]

Well done Peter. Here have a gold star. I've got better things to do than indulge in this idiocy.

Take that as a victory if you like. Have a brownie point as well.

 

[Peter R]

It's idiocy because there is no agreed way to define what "bitcoin" is or what the "true" consensus ruleset is. I used the words "consensus ruleset" because Dan just used the same words to argue the opposite.

I think my explanation of the events is correct: SV removed the replay protection because they thought there would only be a single chain. They were wrong and now see that it would be better if transactions were not replayable across the chains.

 

[freetrader]

 

[molecular]

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.

This is interesting. I kept roughly 30% of my BSV as I kept roughly 30% of my BTC. From a value-optimization point of view this hasn't been a good strategy at all, but there's also the fact that my "wallet" is the only thing I can use to "vote" and influencing how things develop is something I *want* to do.

I'd rather lose wealth making the choice I believe in than profit off the opposing side winning, especially when the battle is fought with money like it at least partly is here and so my betting on the opposing side is actually harmful to my own cause.

On the other hand: maybe I'm just overly optimistic and that's why I act so decisively. And I take the point about keeping powder for another battle, which I do, but not to a large enough extent. It's impatience maybe. Usually my strategy in games like Command and Conquer is to identify a weak spot in the enemy, then concentrate on building suitable weaponry (and pretty much ignore everything else except resource flow), time it right and then throw everything I have at the enemy. Usually works fine. But here of course I'm not the only player on the friendly side, so this doesn't work very well depending on how many people join in...

Looks like I have some things to learn...

 

[Erik Hedman]

Have you noticed that you are on page 1337 of this thread?

 

[RollieMe]

Why do people with thousands or tens of thousands of followers protect their twitter account? It's not like they can personally know all of their followers who they deem trustworthy enough to view their tweets. First JVP and now CSW. I don't use twitter for posting but I used to read what those guys tweeted.