Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
But CSW doesn't understand how mining works. The chains did split because the rulesets were mutually incompatible (that this would happen was obvious).
This was obvious I agree. Anyone who did not understand what was going to happen as a result of this "obvious result" lacks the necessary economic competence to govern the bitcoin project. (That should include all the BCH developers, it applies to everyone alive today) Those who thought it was obvious and knew how bitcoin works made a lot of money.

The statement by CSW "You split we bankrupt you" also leads me to believe he understood it was obvious. He said that before the split. At the time I understood it to mean he had a week position and needed to resort to making the threat.

CSW could have said, "We understand how the code works, and we can not prevent a split, but we can use all the available tools at our disposal to discourage you from splitting."

What CSW said was:

I believe by saying "You Split we bankrupt you" the message had a much greater audience in contrast to crafting a politically correct statement like.

"We understand how the code works we don't have to resources to prevent you from changing it, or kicking us out of the network if we don't accept your authority.

Please cooperate and don't make the change. We know we can not prevent a split, but in the event, you decide to fork us off the network by making changes we cannot accept, we will use all the available tools at our disposal to discourage you from splitting.

Please don't split the network it's not worth it."

The latter seems less newsworthy. and the result would have probably been the same.

The unfortunate consequence was Roger. His reaction implies he understood nChain to be hostile and in a week position and saw no reason to cooperate, and he saw an opportunity to fork them off.

(e.g., he wants the two chains to "re-merge" somehow).
LOL, yes he's an experienced guy. Your first assessment of Calvin was probably more accurate he understands bitcoin very well.

He's presenting his legal position. It has nothing to do with anything but his expectations. I have similar expectations. That is just one way bitcoin.com and ABC can compensate him for his losses as a result of splitting the network.

FYI before I reinvest in BCH, I require a public apology from ABC and reddit and an effort on behalf of the ABC developers to rectify the loss in adoption caused by splitting and forking in the new rules.

Yes, I'm also a little stupid, that's not a realistic demand, but if the BCH network wants my money they need to give me confidence they won't make the same mistakes again. The reality is ABC didn't make a mistake forking off SV and changing the rules, and they know better than me, so they don't need me it's win-win. I still hold equal amounts of BCH to BSV so I'm still invested in each succeeding.

It does concern me those who've sold their BSV for BCH. I don't know how they can be objective if they are biased towards BCH over BSV.

The idea that making code changes to your github repository is somehow unlawful is preposterous.
I think this is the wrong way think about it. Bitcoin is not an OSS Project, It's money for the world. nChain and the ABC forking is a mutual declaration. CSW sent a message that was very clear he did not want to split. ABC sent a message that was very clear they were going to split SV if they did not follow ABC's lead.

ABC ensured the Bitcoin code was designed to split SV off. nChain had no other option but to make threats. Dismissing those threats as preposterous is an option, but if you understood the "code" and how forks work you'd know that's was one probable outcome.

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.
They did not want a split. I'm sure they couldn't prevent the split, preventing the split would have required cooperation on the ABC side or majority of all SHA256 hashrate. The SV side by relaying all transactions was signalling no split was an option. ABC didn't do it alone, they needed many players cooperating to split SV off the network and force the new and unnecessary rules through.
 
Last edited:

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
856
http://royalforkblog.github.io/2014/11/20/txn-demo/

This is how a transaction is constructed. As you can see, there are no fields to add decimals. You would have to add hex fields to do so and that would be incompatible. I guess this site is no longer technical.
Look this is a problem that is for later, and it is solvable.

The amount of money units must be unchanged, that is important, that is an important aspect of sound money. Then, the base unit is the satoshi, and a bitcoin is defined as 100 000 000 (100 million satoshis). It is written in the transactions in binary, and the wallets present it the way they like.

The number can not be floating point, because that is a number type that cannot be used for exact calculation. The numbers have to be either whole numbers or fractions.

By extending the coins value with four more bits, we can get fractions of satoshis, half, quarter. eighth and sixteenth. The transactions can easily be changed to a longer field for value, but even that is not necessary, because we can remove some bits from the front at the same time. After a cutoff block in the future, all new coin values must be shifted 4 bits, and as a consequence there will be a max coin value less than the total coin number, which is no problem. A proposal exists for this, but I could not immediately find it.

The current system is good for one coin worth up to a million dollars, meaning that 100 satoshis will be one dollar and the fee can still be only one percent, one satoshi. I don't know, but I suspect this was in the mind of satoshi when he decided all these parameters.

The governments routinely remove the smallest coins from circulation when they become obsolete due to their small value, we just do the opposite, creating smaller coins. The total number of money units will be the same.

This is totally ok for the day to day usage and for the economy, Mises famously said that the sum of all money is always 1.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
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.
Peter the same facts tell another story, what's going to happens next is each side is going to pay a bunch of lawyers thousands of dollars an hour for the next couple of years to tell that story.

ABC developers don't have the necessary business experience to handle that. When one side runs out of money they capitulate. That's how the law works it sickens me but I've learned the hard way.

This ends with a settlement or a garnishing order one way or the other. Bitcoin is one of those assets you can't get governments to garnish so that is interesting. How secure they are is going to be tested. I suspect if you revisit your Segwit talk we're could see BTC miners ordered by law to move digital assets on the asset ledger that are separate from the ownership signatures on the segregated ownership ledger.

looking at the USDT market cap and assuming there are 1:1 USD backing them up that there is a lot of money at stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and lunar

NewLiberty

Member
Aug 28, 2015
70
442
The lawsuit against the devs was filed in Florida.
Florida has strong anti-SLAPP law.
I expect it to be dismissed on those grounds, unless they find SEC violations, but SLAPP legislation can stay discovery too, so probably it is a nothing burger.

http://conlinpa.com/2015/08/15/new-florida-anti-slapp-law-has-a-broad-scope-pertaining-to-lawsuits-filed-by-any-person/

EDIT:
In relevant part: "The new statute allows an affected Defendant to move the Court for an order dismissing the SLAPP lawsuit or granting final judgment in the Defendant’s favor. The Defendant can also move for summary judgment to obtain the same result.

The court is required to set a hearing “as soon as practicable” after the Plaintiff responds to the Defendant’s motion.

After the hearing the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the issue. The fees are mandatory, rather than permissive (the word “shall” is used), and they go to the “prevailing party” – whoever wins. This prevailing party language should discourage the filing of meritless anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss."

2nd EDIT: What's a SLAPP?
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit intended to, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

In a SLAPP case, the plaintiff filing the suit does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.


So... If Roger's lawyers aren't lazy, BlockchainDomes or whomever pays their bills, pays costs for both sides, plus attorney fees.
Its very generous of them to make such a legal blunder.
 
Last edited:

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
As you can see, there are no fields to add decimals.
Correct.

You would have to add hex fields to do so and that would be incompatible.
Also correct. It would require a change to the protocol and a hard-fork. This has been known since Satoshi first suggested the idea. Given how gung-ho ABC is, we could probably have it by Tuesday ;)
 

wrstuv31

Member
Nov 26, 2017
76
208
By extending the coins value with four more bits, we can get fractions of satoshis, half, quarter. eighth and sixteenth. The transactions can easily be changed to a longer field for value, but even that is not necessary, because we can remove some bits from the front at the same time. After a cutoff block in the future, all new coin values must be shifted 4 bits, and as a consequence there will be a max coin value less than the total coin number, which is no problem. A proposal exists for this, but I could not immediately find it.
Thanks for this explanation. It's very difficult for a nontechnical person to learn all that is required to make a strategic decision about how to interact with Bitcoin if they can't trust themselves to read the code properly. 'Adding a zero' sounds very different than 'enabling fractional satoshis' to many people. Entries like this one make this thread very valuable for outsiders to read, even if it's an old idea being rehashed.
 

cypherblock

Active Member
Nov 18, 2015
163
182
If ABC extends to fractional satoshis anytime soon, they will lose all followers I think. They will prove BSV correct that we need a stable protocol. If they want just to be on their own, well they can do whatever they want I guess.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
There is absolutely zero rush to fractional Satoshis. That probably means it's a good time to be discussing it and laying out how and when it would be implemented. Then again, if we have another Core situation, raising the block size limit was suggested six years before it became an issue.

I would actually not do it as Erdogan suggest as I don't think powers-of-two fractions would be too user friendly. I think sticking with decimal is the way forward. Of course, if Knots ever takes off... (chuckle).
 

cypherblock

Active Member
Nov 18, 2015
163
182
> Then again, if we have another Core situation,

@Richy_T yes that is exactly the situation this will create, however, unlike blocksize, few people know why we would need/want fractional satoshis in any time frame that is reasonable.

Can you tell me why this is needed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewLiberty

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
To make change if ever a Satoshi is around $100 (and probably before then). Assuming we're talking peer-to-peer electronic cash and not a store of value with some overly-complex second-layer transaction system.
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
Just answering people who are interested in the long time viabilily of the system. It doesn't seem to be a divide and conquer attack. The enemy seems to be confused btw, the block time social media attack was pathetic.

What attack?
 

chriswilmer

Active Member
Sep 21, 2015
146
431
Why are we all of sudden talking about these far-fetched changes? Just because SV is "no change" doesn't mean we need to all of a sudden change stuff left and right. There's no danger in being "too similar" to SV.

Also: where is everybody?
Yeah, it's hard to stay active on this forum these days. It's bizarre to see so many pro-nChain accounts here. We just need more in person conferences! :)
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Peter R looks like your work is paying off, I see progress it:) may not be an apologie, but it looks a lot closer to reality than it did before "suffer no losses" reads like "mitigated exposure to losses" but then that's just how Craig talks. Reality is still really no matter how people project it.