Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

For example, I bought BCH directly before the fork, because I was so confident that there will be no split

lol, I also bought BCH before the fork, but because I was confident there would be a split and we'd finally get rid of Wright. I actually thought BCH price would go up after the split. I totally neglected the possibility SV would have a sizeable following. Need to work on my skills.

proof of work governance for Big Block Bitcoin.

I'm currently thinking about wether this is a good idea *at all*. After reading https://honest.cash/1kbken/the-middle-road-727/ ("A large miner's retrospective take on the recent hash war") I'm growing increasingly convinced that miners are the wrong group to look to for making governance decisions. They just don't want to play that role. It actually *should* be the users, imo. But how? some kind of PoS?

 

[go1111111]

lol, I also bought BCH before the fork, but because I was confident there would be a split and we'd finally get rid of Wright. I actually thought BCH price would go up after the split. I totally neglected the possibility SV would have a sizeable following. Need to work on my skills.

I also bought BCH before the fork for similar reasons. I figured BSV would have much less support than people feared, so the price back at that time was too suppressed due to fear. Even if the price of BCH + BSV after the split was the same as BCH before the split, I figured I could at least get a bit of profit by selling BSV before it crashed.

My takeaway is that I should have appreciated that the market can support the prices of 'bad' projects for quite a long time in crypto. Just look at something like TRON which still has a pretty high market cap. Also in crypto it's very hard to short coins without taking on lots of counterparty risk, so high prices can't get corrected as easily as in normal financial markets.

 

[_bc]

staying 1:1

Now that there are three (real) Bitcoin chains, I liken it to the three-body problem in physics. It quickly defies prediction. It's chaotic. No matter what I think I "know", and how much I try to spot my biases, I can't see an inch in front of my face when it comes to price movements. I do "know" that BCH+BSV is a more "true" Bitcoin than BTC (at least for now), however, so,1:1 it is for long-term positions that will try to outlast any market "irrationality". It's my attempt to simplify this down to a two-body problem.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

lol, I also bought BCH before the fork, but because I was confident there would be a split and we'd finally get rid of Wright. I actually thought BCH price would go up after the split. I totally neglected the possibility SV would have a sizeable following. Need to work on my skills.

Lol, so we both made the same mistake for oposite reasons.

To add a little discussion: After the split I neglected the possibility that ABC would have a sizeable following, because for me it seemed obvious that they startet to act like core - which I deemed unacceptable by this community for historical reasons - and because all the cool apps migrated to SV ... But yes, wrong again ...

 

[cypherdoc]

with the Dow et al in serious trouble, how great would it be if Bitcoin became a bona fide safe haven? this has been theorized many times in the distant past. there's a very good chance it may; given that we've already had our major pullback in price over the last year:

 

[cypherdoc]

i watched Too Big to Fail last night. it was a good accurate refresher (based on the book by Andrew Sorkin) as to what happened in the GFC of 2008-9 and why. it re-emphasized just why Bitcoin could be the savior of the financial system.

 

[Richy_T]

because for me it seemed obvious that they startet to act like core

This is true. Unfortunately, many people seem to like strong "leadership". After all, BTC has continued to remain dominant even though Core continues to act like Core. I also think that many on the BSV side of things seriously underestimate how distasteful CSW is to people. We tend to underplay the negatives of those we are aligned with. It is a human thing to do but it's important to recognize it and not lie to ourselves that we don't.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Richy_T

I guess, "don't talk about persons, talk about ideas" does only count for your own side. Like with trolls, they are always on the other side ...

On another note, BCH crashing to 0.046, and BSV crashing to 0.026. Nice day for everybody here

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I also agree with your point about CSW just being unacceptable as a leader also. For me the point was reached at his talk in Arnheim when he showed a code example of moving loop-invariant code outside the loop which seemed to be taken from a undergrad CS book and bullshitted people into thinking it was his solution for the quadratic hashing "bug" in Bitcoin.

So I have to agree with your conclusion: facepalms all around.

I always wanted to answer on this on, had an instant urgent need to do, but didn't have the time to compose an answer.

I remember, we watched this talk together, and after the talk you told me that you found the screenshoted code not convincing. I fully believe you.

After this talk I thought for myself: "No, he can't be Satoshi", but not because of the code, but because he was a good speaker. In my imagination Satoshi has never been a good speaker - but this talk was brillant. I remember how everybody in the room was quite, totally focused on CSW, while he shot out powerful points in a row, expressing what many Big Blocker thought for a long time, in a perfect, sharp, to the head way. I still love the quote "If you are in Bitcoin since 2009, and you got this wonderful gift, and you can't afford to invest in a 20k dollar node, to help others to get this too - fuck off." Peng. What I thought so often, but have not been brave enough to express it in such strong terms.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think you agreed when I said: "Wow. This have been the most exciting 40 minutes in my Bitcoin live." At least in my memory most people shared this impression.

This was also when I decided for myself, that it doesn't matter if CSW is Satoshi or not, that all those strange "proofs" don't matter - what matters is that he provides a vision, a strong vision, and that he is able to express this vision in a masterful way. And, a surprising side-fact: He is consistent. In Arnheim he brought "small world networks" and "merchant propagates transaction" into play, as well as "fuck your tiny raspberries". He sticked on this, while most prominent public people in Bitcoin tend to change their arguments when it fits their needs ("Nakamoto Consensus doesn't work, wen can't let miners vote" - "Look, we have won the hashwar"). CSW doesn't. He sticks with his thesis, and often they are insideful (while having a fault at the depth).

I understand that it's hard to get it this way, and that there are good reasons to make a cut when someone provides faked proofs. I guess if I was a developer, I'd had a harder time for myself to see over some things. But I'm a historian, and I decided for myself, that CSW will be a person for the books of history, no matter who he is.

 

[majamalu]

I also think that many on the BSV side of things seriously underestimate how distasteful CSW is to people.

I'm not sure about that. I believe that the content of CSW's discourse -- his lies, his contradictions, his empty threats -- is what ended up repelling the same people who had initially been attracted by his bombastic style. I am one of those.

 

[majamalu]

Everything collapsing, Gold and Bitcoin up.

 

[Norway]

I also think that many on the BSV side of things seriously underestimate how distasteful CSW is to people.

No! We know he's a dick!

People will lose a lot of money, because they think a dick is a dick.

 

[Erdogan]

> People will lose a lot of money, because they think a dick is a dick.

It is never only about money

 

[Zarathustra]

Gold still has a long way to go (down) to its normal price level. In recessions, industrial and jewellery demand usually collapses.
[doublepost=1545373805][/doublepost]I agree, what CSW is saying is not very nice, but what ABC representants are doing still disgusts me much more: implementing/pushing for checkpoints, POS hybrids, reduction of block times etc.

 

[molecular]

I always wanted to answer on this on, had an instant urgent need to do, but didn't have the time to compose an answer.

I remember, we watched this talk together, and after the talk you told me that you found the screenshoted code not convincing. I fully believe you.

After this talk I thought for myself: "No, he can't be Satoshi", but not because of the code, but because he was a good speaker. In my imagination Satoshi has never been a good speaker - but this talk was brillant. I remember how everybody in the room was quite, totally focused on CSW, while he shot out powerful points in a row, expressing what many Big Blocker thought for a long time, in a perfect, sharp, to the head way. I still love the quote "If you are in Bitcoin since 2009, and you got this wonderful gift, and you can't afford to invest in a 20k dollar node, to help others to get this too - fuck off." Peng. What I thought so often, but have not been brave enough to express it in such strong terms.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think you agreed when I said: "Wow. This have been the most exciting 40 minutes in my Bitcoin live." At least in my memory most people shared this impression.

This was also when I decided for myself, that it doesn't matter if CSW is Satoshi or not, that all those strange "proofs" don't matter - what matters is that he provides a vision, a strong vision, and that he is able to express this vision in a masterful way. And, a surprising side-fact: He is consistent. In Arnheim he brought "small world networks" and "merchant propagates transaction" into play, as well as "fuck your tiny raspberries". He sticked on this, while most prominent public people in Bitcoin tend to change their arguments when it fits their needs ("Nakamoto Consensus doesn't work, wen can't let miners vote" - "Look, we have won the hashwar"). CSW doesn't. He sticks with his thesis, and often they are insideful (while having a fault at the depth).

I understand that it's hard to get it this way, and that there are good reasons to make a cut when someone provides faked proofs. I guess if I was a developer, I'd had a harder time for myself to see over some things. But I'm a historian, and I decided for myself, that CSW will be a person for the books of history, no matter who he is.

Yes, we attended CSWs talk together and don't get me wrong: I was pretty much blown away because: hell, finally someone said what I was thinking out loud (with an aussie accent no less) and he used plain words and wasn't careful towards the feelings of the people I had come to despise. He spoke my mind and heart and it felt good after eating shit endlessly from the core boys for years and respecting their feelings for so long. Kinda like when someone (like Louis C.K.) makes sexist jokes and it feels good because normally you can't enjoy these, but there's some truth to them you can relate to from personal experience. It feels good.

So yes, I agreed when you said his talk was most exciting. I even clapped at the "fuck off if you don't have $20k for a node", because that's what I myself always wanted to tell those whiny pussies with their supposed raspberries.

The thing is that while the bullshitting - as you point out - isn't substantially taking away from the big picture, but the fact that he's doing it begs some questions. It makes me feel very uneasy about the person: WHY does he have to bullshit me, WHAT ELSE he says (which I can't directly identify as bullshit) is bullshit? Can I trust him at all? The first question is the most important: What's his motivation for spewing this bullshit? Surely he knows better. Clearly the bullshitting is aimed at the 95% of people that don't bother to check or are unable to check. They just go: "hell man, this dude goes deep, he done his homework, hell: he goes so deep and way back he probably satoshi, cause I don't understand what the fuck he's saying exactly. So must be legit"? And the 5%? They probably think it's disrespectful to bullshit people like that and that happens to be what I think.

This view slowly crystallized for me after the Arnheim event. I went to videos of the talk and captured that one slide about quadratic hashing. I think I even posted it here in this thread. It was my example and one clear example was enough for me. Enough energy wasted.

Falkvinge has a good view: everyone is free to take initiative, or not, or follow one, or not. Well, I don't follow bullshit, even if it's just packaging. In fact I fight it, because not only do I dislike being bullshitted, I also dislike others to be bullshitted. It makes it that much harder for me because that bullshit is being repeated by people I talk to and I have to clear it up. It just eats up energy that could be used productively otherwise. Bullshit just leads to foggy minds and people having a clear mind is a prerequisite for a free society in my thinking. If everyone just believes the bullshit others tell them (this is the status quo in larger society, btw)... we're in for trouble (which is the status quo in larger society, btw).

Ok, I'm sorry to have so clearly overused the word bullshit... just speaking my mind here. It's in no way meant to attack you or the other BSV supporters or make anyone feel bad. I think at the core the "no chage" idea is probably good and I'm glad it's being tried.

 

[sickpig]

I don't follow bullshit, even if it's just packaging

^^^^^ this

bullshit just leads to foggy minds and people having a clear mind is a prerequisite for a free society

^^^^^ and this one also.

FWIW I'm going to make a custom car sticker out of the first one

 

[cbeast]

Correct.



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

Except again, this is discrete math being done in the blockchain. If you add two placeholders you multiply the number of bitcoins by 100 to 2.1 billion. When you send bitcoins, your balance will be divided by 100, so if you send a dollar's worth, only a penny will arrive with the rest going into the mining pool. I haven't seen a proposal for changing Bitcoin from discrete math to decimal math without destroying proof of work. I mean sure, it's easy to say some smart person will invent that, but we're seeing what technical debt is created by blind development vision.

 

[sickpig]

BUcash 1.5.1.0 has just been released
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a8b7ug/bitcoin_unlimited_bitcoin_cash_edition_1510_has/

 

[_bc]

List of notable changes and fixes to the code base:

• 10x transaction processing performance
• ...

That's very nice. Does that mean we could raise the limit 10x in May? If not, why not? Anyone mining without BU has 5 months to port the BU changes.

 

[79b79aa8]

@_bc , if you don't mind me asking, are you @albin? that handle seems to have gone inactive, but used to bring up good food for thought. it also had a von Mises avatar.

in other burning news, 2^82,589,933-1 is prime.