Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitsko]

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.

Is it more of or less of a joke than Ten Block Lock™ and the castration of Proof of Work?

Don't flinch.

Edit: can we call fear based changes 'the flinchening'?

 

[molecular]

I have more in my head to write in response to your post than my time permits at the moment... So I'll try to reply to the part that seems most central to me:

For me it was always "lift the limit and let adoption grow". I am against nearly all changes which do not help adoption.

Just "lifting the limit" doesn't do the job, though. We saw in the field that 10 MB/10 minutes is about the throughput we can do without improving node software. Craig and Calvin showed us (through Peters excellent analysis of BSV big-block head-through-wall mining). Some engineering is necessary and if a consensus rule change like CTOR that is relatively non-disruptive and economically irrelevant and doesn't change any monetary properties can greatly help this then I'm all *for* it. And in the end (trhough enabling scaling) it *does* even help adoption.

It's not enough to just remove the limit (or push it to 128MB) in full knowledge that the network wont be able to digest those blocks without sky-high orphan rates. That's "selling shit you can't deliver" in my eyes and that is something I absolutely hate (maybe that's why I hate CSW so much).

I want to react to one more issue you bring up: Schnorr sigs. If those put a huge burden on wallet and infrastructure devs (and also users need to be educated and helped and shit) then I'm against them. We've seen huge resource drain of this type with cashaddr and it didn't improve anything in my mind, like at all: users are still sending the wrong coin to the wrong address and they're even more confused than before.

If Amaury actually pushes through things (like schnorr sigs?) against major opposition I'll probably be on opposition side of a split that time. Haha: Norway can throw a party and have a new song made: "I'll splinter you bches to pieceeeeas!!! I'll fracture your every boooooune!!!". Dark!

 

[bitsko]

'then I'm against them'

Im absolutely not convinced this matters re: the decision making process of the ABC network.

further, every weasel social signal such as this 'i hate him so much' indicates how much people are letting their percieved enemy dominate the narrative.

every abc network channel and forum i frequent is completely dominated by this reactive narrative.

Flinchcoin Unlimited

 

[bitsko]

One more thing;

IF a fundamental assumption of bitcoin is that the majority of hashrate is honest

AND your token is designed to defend against a majority

THEN your token is not bitcoin

I support a whitepaper revision for BCH

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I have more in my head to write in response to your post than my time permits at the moment... So I'll try to reply to the part that seems most central to me:

Hehe, me too, but I can't resist to pull out a few minutes of my day ... hard forks are really bad ... At least I'm a very fast typer

I have so many things to say to each of your sentence. I try to keep it short, and I'll do the bad old game of quoting ... sorry for this ...

Just "lifting the limit" doesn't do the job, though. We saw in the field that 10 MB/10 minutes is about the throughput we can do without improving node software. Craig and Calvin showed us (through Peters excellent analysis of BSV big-block head-through-wall mining).

I am convinced that the network can process more. Especially when (if) we need a sustained throughput of more than 10mb in the future. Network infrastructure and software will have matured greatly to this time. Ironically, the CTOR fork pushed this farer into the future by harming adoption.

Some engineering is necessary and if a consensus rule change like CTOR that is relatively non-disruptive and economically irrelevant and doesn't change any monetary properties can greatly help this then I'm all *for* it. And in the end (trhough enabling scaling) it *does* even help adoption.

Some problems with CTOR (as it was done):
- it had no consensus, not in the larger world (see BU membership vote), not in the small world of developers (devs of BU, XT and SV have been against). This made it highly disruptive and economically relevant. It even changed monetary properties by doubling the number of coins ...
- it's benefit is said to increase the efficiency of graphene from 98% (achieved by BU) to 99.6%. With 10mb blocks this means block processing size of 40kb instead of 200kb. I don't think this is the bottleneck (Bitcoin was able to process 1mb blocks in 2015/16 without any block propagation compression).
- Andrew Stone said that similar efficiency increases can be achieved without a CTOR protocol change.
- it ignores the role of orphans to (1) be a natural limit, useful to keep capacity in a limit which allows to investigate and improve effects of scaling on other factors (CPU, storage, synchronization), and which can help to get a fee market, and (2) incentivize miners to invest in connectivity to earn more from fees.
- it guaranteed a chainsplit while other hardfork features could have been gradually activated by hashpower on one chain.
- there was not a single scientific paper or research about it. The best we got have been a couple of promotional block posts and a long video with seven developers around ABC.

It's not enough to just remove the limit (or push it to 128MB) in full knowledge that the network wont be able to digest those blocks without sky-high orphan rates. That's "selling shit you can't deliver" in my eyes and that is something I absolutely hate (maybe that's why I hate CSW so much).

That's exactly what my Lightning maximalist buddies tell me: "it's scam to promote Bitcoin as an universal payment system since it can't do this without Lightning". Going the path of ABC seems to lead back to what we should have left behind: Blocksize-limit != real blocksize. If orphans serve as a natural limit below the blocksize limit, I see no problem at all.

I want to react to one more issue you bring up: Schnorr sigs. If those put a huge burden on wallet and infrastructure devs (and also users need to be educated and helped and shit) then I'm against them. We've seen huge resource drain of this type with cashaddr and it didn't improve anything in my mind, like at all: users are still sending the wrong coin to the wrong address and they're even more confused than before.

If Amaury actually pushes through things (like schnorr sigs?) against major opposition I'll probably be on opposition side of a split that time. Haha: Norway can throw a party and have a new song made: "I'll splinter you bches to pieceeeeas!!! I'll fracture your every boooooune!!!". Dark!

Why do you think they will change their behaviour, after most of the oposition forked off? I hoped they grow up after the DAA-thing, after Cashaddr, after the May hardfork. After seing where the Nov fork is headed on, I gave up. There will be no major oposition. Neither CSW, nor CoinGeek, nor me, nor Norway, nor BU membership, nor XT will invest energy in oposing it. With the Nov fork BCH has become property of ABC and friends. In best case BU and XT will be asked, but like with CTOR, they will not count when they don't agree. There will be no split, the split already happened. You'll have no other choice than going with ABC or switching to SV. I know you will not like this

 

[Richy_T]

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.

Well, perhaps "distasteful" is the wrong word to use. I am referring to those lies, contradictions and empty threats. I think it would actually be disastrous to have CSW in charge for those reasons. It's not just about him being a "dick" (per Norway). I'd actually be cool with that.

I think if CSW was serious about BSV, he would have stepped aside for someone who people wouldn't have had to switch off their spidey senses to get behind. But for CSW, it's not about BCH, it's about CSW.

Speak about ideas not people? The idea is that CSW is untrustworthy and dangerous to be around.

As for the things he says at conferences and stuff? Sure. It's nice to be told the things you want to hear. But all this stuff has been well known for many years now and anyone could dig it up and knock it into a rallying speech.

 

[79b79aa8]

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.

beyond the mind-numbinblgy obvious, do you know the roadmap for USD? for EUR? for GBP? might that be because there is a difference between a currency and a software project?

 

[Richy_T]

I haven't seen a proposal for changing Bitcoin from discrete math to decimal math without destroying proof of work.

Why would that destroy proof of work which is simply hashing a value?

If I take a penny and cut it in half, have I increased the number of dollars in existence? It's really not a hard problem if there is the will to implement it. This has been discussed to death and I'm not going to do it again here. If you believe adding decimals is the same as inflating the currency, you are truly in a minority, one which also doesn't include Satoshi himself (if I could just find the quote).
[doublepost=1545578527,1545577773][/doublepost]

for example, he says that there will be no need for banks,

There may be no need but there may still be a role. Perhaps that's the difference. Being unbanked in today's western economies is a problem that becomes a non-issue with crypto.

I do agree that the statement is a bit hyperbolic though.

 

[molecular]

Some problems with CTOR (as it was done):
It even changed monetary properties by doubling the number of coins ...

Oh come on. You're not saying that with a straight face, are you

 

[majamalu]

There will be no major oposition. Neither CSW, nor CoinGeek, nor me, nor Norway, nor BU membership, nor XT will invest energy in oposing it. With the Nov fork BCH has become property of ABC and friends. In best case BU and XT will be asked, but like with CTOR, they will not count when they don't agree. There will be no split, the split already happened. You'll have no other choice than going with ABC or switching to SV. I know you will not like this

Maybe it's time to admit that, at this stage, each crypto has a kind of de facto oligarchy disciplined by the dynamism of a free market -- that is, free both to reward liberally and to punish without mercy. Because unlike political oligarchies, ours lack coercive power and can be abandoned almost effortlessly. That's a good thing.

Regardless of our preferences, we should celebrate that the leaders of the various projects show reckless determination when it comes to pointing out a way forward. Thereby, some of us will be guided to success and others to the abyss, as is to be expected in any evolutionary process. Is that bad? Compared to what? It's a messy process, granted, but rejecting it amounts to embracing a new version of the Fed.

The way to minimize abuse of authority by the leaders is not to apply internal "checks and balances", which are easily gameable, but to increase the cost of their mistakes. In a geographical area, that means announcing separatist intentions; in Cryptoland, that means announcing forking intentions.

The possibility of a fork always hangs over the heads of the decision makers, discouraging their bad behaviour. Will my coin survive in the long term? Will my coin lose too many users? Will it lose the support of key investors? The same questions will torment those who propose a fork. And let's face it: there's no way to know the answers to these questions in advance.

Again, I can't help but wonder: What's the alternative to this process? Undoubtedly, something worse or much worse. Imagine the situation in which we would find ourselves now if it were not for the small group of people who, accepting the uncertainties of independence, made the decision to lead the separation from Core.

If you are not willing to take each new contentious fork as a precious opportunity to strengthen Bitcoin against the enemies of monetary freedom, you'd better keep a safe distance from this mutant creature.

 

[molecular]

Merry Christmas everyone. I wish you happy days with your loved ones!

 

[molecular]

Here's something interesting Peter Surda wrote in early 2017 (regarding BTC/BCH fork):

(from http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/)

Secondary axis: collectivism versus individualism
A second characteristic, orthogonal to the conservative / progressive one, is an affinity towards collectivism versus individualsim. Collectivists want everyone to adhere to a broad set of rules, whereas individualists want just a very narrow set of rules for everyone. In the forking debate, collectivists want there to be only one Bitcoin and the other to either die or never start in the first place, whereas individualists are either indifferent or prefer that both survive. In the forking debate, collectivists point to lost network effect, consumer confusion and similar things. Individualists argue that a fork would prevent oppression and allow to refocus resources productively.

I have to admit I'm having a hard time placing myself on this axis (or anyone else). So maybe it's not a good distinction to make?

 

[Zarathustra]

Happy christmas everybody!

 

[cbeast]

Why would that destroy proof of work which is simply hashing a value?

If I take a penny and cut it in half, have I increased the number of dollars in existence? It's really not a hard problem if there is the will to implement it. This has been discussed to death and I'm not going to do it again here. If you believe adding decimals is the same as inflating the currency, you are truly in a minority, one which also doesn't include Satoshi himself (if I could just find the quote).
[doublepost=1545578527,1545577773][/doublepost]

Thank you. At least you understand the argument, even if you think it's only an opinion. There were a lot of misunderstandings in the early discussions. The meaning and purpose of data centers, SPV transactions and the term cryptocurrency is fiction, were all biased narratives. Most of us missed them. Cheers!

 

[AdrianX]

The CashAddr proposal is technically good, but I don't think the extra wait and effort imposed on others was made up for by its benefits.

This is the problem with ABC and Core in a nutshell. If you don't have a technical objection you don't have a valid objection.

In the absence of comprehensive knowledge, no change is better. In this instant, I think there were problems of people losing money and BCH having split was the cause of the problem and something needed to be done to protect users.

The address format changed by ABC, and copying Core btw a trend that is now concerning, illustrates a lack of leadership and understanding of the problem. Thus ABC's solution was responsible for separating much of the existing ecosystem. Had ABC done nothing the situation would have resolved with businesses stepping up and cooperated like BitPay taking the lead and solved the problem.

 

[majamalu]

Here's something interesting Peter Surda wrote in early 2017 (regarding BTC/BCH fork):

(from http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/)

I have to admit I'm having a hard time placing myself on this axis (or anyone else). So maybe it's not a good distinction to make?

Yeah, it's a weird distinction. You can be an individualist and at the same time understand the immense power of the network effect.

It is difficult to express myself in English, and yet I make the effort because in my opinion it's worth it. That doesn't make me a collectivist, but an individualist who understands the benefits of a lingua franca.

 

[cypherdoc]

where are all the 128MB poison/spam blocks that should be attacking the BSV network since it's "not ready"?

 

[cypherdoc]

so it appears at least 65mb blocksizes can propagate and be processed by the BSV network in a timely manner. although we probably knew this already from the 64mb block:


I haven't yet had time to investigate whether this was a miner self constructed block...
.

 

[cypherdoc]

Oh OK. only 3m after prior block :

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, it's a weird distinction. You can be an individualist and at the same time understand the immense power of the network effect.

It is difficult to express myself in English, and yet I make the effort because in my opinion it's worth it. That doesn't make me a collectivist, but an individualist who understands the benefits of a lingua franca.

@molecular @majamalu

Individualism is only possible in (hyper-) collectivist environments (socialism, capitalism etc., aka patriarchy). That's the irony. Anarchy on the other hand is the environment of self-sufficient communities, which is the environment of cooperation. In contrast to the 'individualists', those self-sufficient communities are not dependent on the work of and the interactions with strangers, aliens and unknowns. This is an anthropological fact that 'anarcho-capitalists' can not understand, because they studied Austrian-Mengerian theology and esoterics instead of science (anthropology and the history of anarchy and patriarchy).