Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_bc]

@79b79aa8, no, but thank you for reminding me why I had put-off adding an avatar for so long. I'd forgotten about @albin, and his avatar. Is this an exact mach? I might've meant to dig-up a different one if it were. Oh well.
[doublepost=1545429338][/doublepost]

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

Bizarre. That's my favorite number!

I seem to remember an alt-coin whose POW was calculating primes ("prime coin"?). Not sure if it's still around, but I'm curious if it ever found any previously-unknown primes.

 

[molecular]

PrimeCoin PPC (still exists). The PoW was about finding certain sequences of (mersenne?) primes. So I doubt they found any new primes. I think difficulty was linked to the length those sequences had to be. The idea was that this PoW would incentivize research into prime numbers. Not sure wether the search for a better mining algo resulted in any new findings. Probably not.

 

[wrstuv31]

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.

How do you tell BS from advertising? Rick is certainly guilty of incorrect opinions, for example, he says that there will be no need for banks, he said it on TV. That's ignorant BS, but he's not a bad guy, and I would happily follow his projects on their own merits. BS is allowed, imo, as long as I can understand why they're BSing and how it helps their interests/satisfies their world views.

Now Maxwell, I knew was lying but I couldn't always figure out why. Best to avoid him.

 

[majamalu]

Gold still has a long way to go (down) to its normal price level. In recessions, industrial and jewellery demand usually collapses.

In a hyper-leveraged environment, full of asset bubbles that were inflated by artificially cheap credit, gold is (at least) a reasonable insurance.

I still think that gold and Bitcoin can go to the moon hand in hand.

 

[molecular]

good article about using avalanche for "post-consensus" by @Mengerian : https://medium.com/@Mengerian/avalanche-post-consensus-making-bitcoin-cash-indestructible-2464b1ae0382

 

[Norway]

Post-consensus is great if you're scared of hashpower. So is rolling checkpoints.

 

[Norway]

I hope someone makes post- and preconsensus for BCH. Because this can make the BCH chain fragment further.

I want BCH to split as soon as possible and into as many small parts as possible. Because I want world money, and BSV has the roadmap (don't change the protocol) to reach this goal.

@Mengerian wants to protect a minority chain (measured in hashpower/value) with post-consensus. It's a losing strategy with zero ambition.

Hashpower is the friend and protector of BSV, not the enemy.
[doublepost=1545516321,1545515598][/doublepost]Post- and preconsensus gives four possible combinations (no change, post, pre, both) and four potential chains.

Combine this with new OP-codes, new rolling checkpoint systems, altered blocktimes and other protocol "inventions" to fix something that works, and we will have dividend galore, according to investor @deadalnix.

It's foolish to think that developers and other in the ecosystem can come to agreements for a single direction for BCH.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Where in ABC's roadmap could one find Avalanche "post consensus"?

Avalanche smells like IOTA's magic BFT solutions that can't work in real life.

By the way, maybe I am to tired now but mengerians article isn't really clearing things up.

But for miners, merchants, and exchanges following the Avalanche consensus, this provides a viable method of surviving 51% attacks. The defenders could at least coordinate their efforts reliably, and not be thrown into chaos by a crafty attacker.

Can someone explain why and how?


Unnecessary bullcrap. Get us a fucking permanent blocksize solution and don't shit your pants forever because of CSW's intimidation tactics.

 

[Norway]

HandCash showed how fast (less than 48 hours) incentivized economic players can solve a problem when a clever hacker found a way around their doublespend alerts.

This self healing capability of bitcoin should be noticed. Think about it. This small company in Spain solved 0-conf with little effort and made Avalanche outdated before it even materialized.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

ABC is not going to change now. If anything they are emboldened by the results. And you are all still here. It doesn't seem the purpose here for such piling on. At least maybe ask him his thoughts. Sure, he might ignore, as it seems he has been inclined to do, but ya, you are all still here.
[doublepost=1545519537,1545518877][/doublepost]I do acknowledge that it could be that the intent is to show that the roadmap is moot, I don't know.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Btw, @deadalnix, what did we need the fucking highly controversial CTOR change for?
Don't you have to build stuff on this now? Oh yeah I remember, that wasn't your work to do anymore. You had your fun with fucking everybody and pissing people of.
And now you start deving around the next bullshit that you know will piss a lot of people off.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Are you really surprised? Do you know about Schnorr? And Merkel-Patricia trees? Avalanche is not alone.

Let me predict how it will happen: The same five or six guys promote it, there will be some minor discussion - maybe BU is invited, maybe not - but no argument will be made that the same five or six guys consider good enough to count, so there will be consensus. Then there will be the feature freeze, and after it discussion will no longer be allowed or be framed as made by SV trolls to create disharmony. And yes, SV trolls will use any chance to exploit this.

Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my prediction. We'll see soon.

Happy christmas everybody!

 

[cypherblock]

This self healing capability of bitcoin should be noticed. Think about it. This small company in Spain solved 0-conf with little effort and made Avalanche outdated before it even materialized.

I don't know much about their tech. I assume they are just doing fast double spend detection and alerting users to this via some notification. It solves one kind of problem. I don't think it was ever a problem that people said couldn't be solved via listening and alerting. This has always been the approach for that. I'd be surprised if they were the first to do it but then again no one is spending bitcoin anyway, so maybe it was never an issue that people saw as useful.

I think Chris Pacia's article discussed the other kind of double spend (where you wait till you leave the store). This method is impossible to detect until you send the competing tx of course. So pay for your groceries, walk out, drive away. Maybe that takes 5 min. Then send competing tx with higher fee. So yeah sometimes it won't work if the first tx was already mined into a block, but lots of times it can work.

Anyway I'm not in favor of using Avalanche to fix that, but to imply that HandCash has fixed it is false.

 

[majamalu]

Some people tend to automatically take any proposed change as a way to prevent normal use and block scalability. I would say that they suffer from PCSD (Post Core Stress Disorder).

None of the changes proposed by ABC would have aroused much controversy in Bitcoin pre-BCH fork, if it were not for the Blockstream invasion.

If a BCH developer proclaims that we need to force an increase in fees, or that Bitcoin is a settlement system, or some other shit like that, I will start worrying.

For now, I am much more concerned about the army of BSV lawyers willing to use the state apparatus under any excuse against the competition.

-EDIT- Just to be clear: I am not afraid of BSV lawyers; I am afraid of the horrible ideas behind their actions.

 

[Bagatell]

BSV has the roadmap (don't change the protocol) to reach this goal.

The BSV roadmap is a joke. It is way too vague and only extends to Q2 2019. More importantly it makes no mention of permissioned mining, transaction validation, user validation or treasure hunting.

I said it of core and I say it of SV - I want nothing to do with them.

 

[Bagatell]

 

[molecular]

I hope someone makes post- and preconsensus for BCH. Because this can make the BCH chain fragment further.

you're being quite hostile (What happened to "let everyone try his thing and let the market decide"?), but I can understand why. I think we share the same goal (one sound crypto), just seem to have different ideas what it should look like. Taken the implications of this goal being reached some day or not, I think some emotionalities can be expected. I'm also "guilty" of that (not that emotions are bad per se, it's just that they sometimes suppress fruitful discussion).

Apart from that I have an honest question: what exactly do you mean by "no change to the protocol". Let's take the proposed use of avalanche to "solve" 0-conf (it can't really be solved, everything is just differently efficient band-aids). The use of avalanche to resolve double-spends for block inclusion doesn't change any consensus rules. In fact, any group of miners could use it right now without anyone really noticing (except people trying double-spends and even they wouldn't be able to spot exactly what is going on): it's merely a replacement for the "first seen" rule: let avalanche do it's thing to determine which one of a set of conflicting tx candidates should be mined. I fail to see the harm. I fail to see any relevant change in economics or incentives. So is this change really something SV couldn't adopt?

Can you give me a general rule that evaluates a proposed change regarding wether or not it could be adopted in BSV?

I'm asking you personally, btw, because you're part of the group in the Satoshi's Vision camp that I have come to respect greatly (pre-fork). I'd also like to hear the opinion of @Christoph Bergmann and @cypherdoc. They're also in that group. In case there is a clear stance on this for BSV in general, I'd also like to know that and see where it's clearly proclaimed (I didn't look to be honest, so forgive me if it's easy to find).

Thanks.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

New Are you really surprised? Do you know about Schnorr? And Merkel-Patricia trees? Avalanche is not alone.

Yes, because it's in the roadmap. And Schnorr isn't really controversial (why should it be?)

I said it of core and I say it of SV - I want nothing to do with them.

Me neither.

But I'd rather not have to decide between lawyer-conman-lost-treasury-coin and devs-gotta-dev-we'll-scale-in-q1/2025 coin..
[doublepost=1545559840][/doublepost]
Anybody is going to tell me, that Avalanche isn't screwing around with the fundamentals of BCH?

How is everybody just swallowing this crap?

And btw., do you see parallels to the LN discussion? LN people wanted to solve the problem Bitcoin solved. And in the end they put layers on top of layers on top of layers. And if you start pulling these layers apart you see that they solved absolutely nothing.

PoW works.

(Oh and btw., nice that the Avalanche whitepaper starts with spitting this PoW is energy waste bullshit.)

 

[freetrader]

I noticed @deadalnix stated during the interview that current Avalanche work (in ABC) would not require a fork at all (reason given was that it was pre-consensus).

So far so good, but at other times we've read / heard that the Avalanche pre-consensus would cause miners to orphan blocks which contain unfavored transactions (ones decided against by Avalanche double spend resolution).

I guess the block orphaning could be optional, but there's little clarity on it right now. To prevent confusion, these things should be laid out as clearly as possible early on (in writing).

If block orphaning according to these new rules becomes a possibility, then IMHO he should not be calling it 'not a fork'. It would be just as much a fork on miners as other soft-forks which they would need to follow in order not to waste electricity on blocks that would not be accepted.
[doublepost=1545562081,1545560979][/doublepost]

Anybody is going to tell me, that Avalanche isn't screwing around with the fundamentals of BCH?

Depends on what & how it is done.

I'm fairly happy to hear Amaury speak of a lengthy testnet phase before possibly activating the pre-consensus part in the later part of next year. That's the sort of timeframe that allows for a good amount of scrutiny.

If block orphaning based on the Avalanche pre-consensus is part of the final design, then I think it clearly breaches the line into consensus relevant changes. I still wouldn't call it "screwing around" if it is done with sufficient analysis and confidence that no new attack vectors are introduced.

Personally, I'm not yet persuaded that Avalanche has received sufficient critical examination by the security researchers in the blockchain community. These things don't necessarily happen in the space of a year or two.
I'd really like to see the new coin (Ava) based on Avalance surive for a while in the real world before BCH implements Avalanche for anything affecting real (POW) consensus. Including the "post-consensus" proposal by @Mengerian.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes, because it's in the roadmap. And Schnorr isn't really controversial (why should it be?)

I don't know this roadmap. For me the roadmap has always been "lift the damn limit and let adoption grow". That's why I have been so opposed to all this.

About Schnorr ... I don't really care so much ... but a few ideas why it could be controversial. There are devils in the details. Just a few uneducated guesses ...

How is it implemented? As a new, optional transaction signature mechanism - or as a replacement of ecdsa? If the first, it will diminish its effects, like with SegWit, and add complexity to wallets and all kind of software. If the second, you have a masive risk of destroying everything, and you'll need to beware every software is ready when it is activated. I guess you can have endless fights about which version is worse.

The signature algorithm is the very heart of Bitcoin. Replacing / changing it should be controversial as long as the old one is not broken. Imho changing it should be a no-go as long as you have no really good reasons for doing so. It requires massive trust in the developers. Does Schnorr have enough advantages?

Rolling out Schnorr will require a lot of work. How can wallets deal with it? Are they able to understand transactions with Schnorr signatures? Or do their dev need to rebuild the Schnorr code in the language they use? How will block explorers show transactions with merged inputs? Will we have two methods to create multisig? Will merchants using blockexplorer's APIs or light wallets need to rebuild their payment algorithm to detect transactions with Schnorr signatures?

And, finally: What is the benefit of Schnorr to outbalance all the work, that the ecosystem's developers need to do and could spent on things which actually help adoption? Does it outbalance a felt negative of allowing devs happily doing a heart-transplantation of Bitcoin without a direct need? And so on.

@molecular

Apart from that I have an honest question: what exactly do you mean by "no change to the protocol".

Sorry for not answering the interesting part about Avalanche. Maybe another time.

For me it was always "lift the limit and let adoption grow". I am against nearly all changes which do not help adoption. Earlier I thought it to be a good idea to add confidential transactions, as it would help adoption, but after thinking deeper about it I don't think this is good. I would be ok with adding some kind of UTXO-commitment, as it helps adoption with the "run your own node" prepper bitcoiners.

I'm in no way ok of doing CTOR-Avalanche-Schnorr-Merklix-and whatever Amaury wants to to. None of this helps adoption, it even trades adoption against some perceived technological advantages which have not even any kind of contact with the current level of adoption. Imho they make BCH a science project of a "benevolent" dictator, that does not compete with Bitcoin, but with IOTA. I said this weeks, maybe months before the fork ...

This is just my impression of "no change to the protocol" and "roadmap". I don't expect you or anybody here to share it (except maybe Norway, Lunar, Cypherdoc and a few others), and I fully accept that you prefer to change the protocol to make Bitcoin Cash technically the best Bitcoin. I guess it is about preferences and priorities ... But to answer you question: I see not much potential in which BCH can match with what I want, while SV wants to represent it, as least they say it and I see not much evidence of them lying about this.