Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

An early demo of our Ka-Ching project.

 

[Norway]

I hope the video above make self-proclaimed "bitcoin protocol developers" understand why Schnorr signatures and protocol "upgrades" in general is a bad idea.

In an experimental laboratory, Schnorr sigs may be better. But in the real world, it's a turd sandwich.

Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen differ in one aspect. I have learned the importance of this after the happy upgrade of BCH in may last year.

Ok, both CSW and GA probably change their opinion over time because they are smart people. And I like what they both represent. I'm not trying to create a wedge here.

The point is this:
Gavin propose better governance of the bitcoin protocol. He understands that it's a problem, and it has to be solved. Check out this classic video about the subject where the very anonymous new maintainer/overlord of BTC, Wladimir, makes a public appearance:

Craig Wright's proposal is better. He doesn't want to create a UN-like organization where "everybody" can give their input and argument about how the rules of bitcoin should evolve.

His proposal is simpler. The proposal is (drumroll):
Let's freeze the protocol. No politics/government is needed.

It makes so much sense to a company like mine (Bitcoin.no AS) when we try to build things on bitcoin.

It's a fucking protocol! You should be able to trust that it will be the same tomorrow or next year, just like you want your unspent outputs to not change unless you choose to spend money.

I will vote yes for @theZerg to continue his awesome work as lead developer for BU. I don't agree with him on everything, but he makes up hundred folds in real actions for what we may disagree on.

 

[cypherblock]

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Basics_of_HTTP/Evolution_of_HTTP

 

[kostialevin]

@cypherblock
HTTP versions can coexists.
HTTP is a point to point protocol, Bitcoin is not.
Bitcoin is more like TCP/IP because it manages interactions between many actors at the same time. Evolution of TCP/IP basically does not exists.

 

[cypherblock]

@kostialevin @Norway
Does anyone want to make a wager about BSV introducing protocol and/or consensus changes? I wager they will introduce some, you can take the not side if you want.

 

[Norway]

@cypherblock
I don't say the BSV protocol is frozen now. It's the goal. I hope we get there may this year.

BCH doesn't have this as a goal, because they don't understand the problems of a constantly changing protocol.

 

[kostialevin]

@cypherblock
Future changes:
BSV: p2sh deprecation + unlimited block size
BCH: unlimited "improvements"

 

[cypherblock]

BCH doesn't have this as a goal, because they don't understand the problems of a constantly changing protocol.

BCH has some specific things they are trying to achieve (like massive scalability, improving 0-conf) and that is leading them down a road that they think requires some changes.

BSV has some specific things they are trying to achieve as well, but frankly they are mostly the same as BCH there just seems to be a difference of opinion about how to get there I think.

I don't think anyone desires constantly changing protocol. That BCH has have a 6 month hardfork schedule in short term hopefully doesn't mean they will stick to that forever, it is just a desire to get a lot of changes out of the way quickly. BSV if I understand correctly wants to up their blocksize quickly as well and who knows when the p2sh deprecation will come in.

It seems both BSV and BCH would likely stop making frequent "breaking" changes in the future. I don't really understand your constant remarks somehow proclaiming BSV as better when 1) they have NOT frozen the protocol 2) We have no idea when they will freeze the protocol 3) their changes will be disruptive to wallets and services (rolling back p2sh).

By the same token I agree some of ABC proposed changes are not necessarily what everyone wants and will be disruptive as well. But I don't see BCH vs BSV as fundamentally different YET with regards to protocol changes. Maybe in the future, but promises are easily broken.

So when I hear you trumpet the greatness of BSV for freezing a protocol which they are still changing, it just comes across completely wrong, misguided, etc.

 

[Norway]

@cypherblock

So when I hear you trumpet the greatness of BSV for freezing a protocol which they are still changing, it just comes across completely wrong, misguided, etc.

Again: I'm not saying BSV is frozen now. It's the goal. BCH doesn't share this goal. Prepare for more conflicts and splits in BCH's future.

 

[Norway]

BCH has some specific things they are trying to achieve (like massive scalability, improving 0-conf) and that is leading them down a road that they think requires some changes.

0-conf is solved on BSV. Doublespend POP by Handcash or GTFO.

 

[freetrader]

Handcash is moving away from SPV according to its creator.

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
Can you doublespend POP by Handcash?

I don't think you can.

Prove me wrong.
[doublepost=1547766623,1547765521][/doublepost]I really liked the attack from that guy who doublespent POP by polling nodes with different transactions to get a list of the nodes closest to hashpower and then exploiting this information to perform the attack. Very creative and cool. I love it!

But this attack is based on asymetric information about nodes. The people defending against doublespends can use the exact same method as the attacker to get the same information as the attacker.

POP by Handcash solved this issue in 48 hours. A small startup in Spain with many things on their plate solved it easy.

On the BCH side of things, people are seriously considering to alter the fundamental economics of bitcoin and make it prone to sybil attacks with Avalanche. This is madness!

 

[cypherblock]

0-conf is solved on BSV. Doublespend POP by Handcash or GTFO.

I hope they are paying you for this shameless promotion. As has been pointed out many times this covers fast double spends only, and this way to do it has been around for ages.

Pay for groceries, walk out of store, double spend before block gets mined.Ouch.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@cypherblock
Future changes:
BSV: p2sh deprecation + unlimited block size
BCH: unlimited "improvements"

If you think about the send-to-segwit-problem (now worse after the fork for bch) depreciating p2sh might not be that crazy...

 

[Norway]

I hope they are paying you for this shameless promotion. As has been pointed out many times this covers fast double spends only, and this way to do it has been around for ages.

Pay for groceries, walk out of store, double spend before block gets mined.Ouch.

Well, you should prove your point by doing slow respends.

Do it @cypherblock! Or are you not capable to do this?

I wish @Peter R did the same experiments he did before the conference in Italy but with longer delays and a lot higher tx fees. Where is the threshold for a miner to grab the very much higher fee from the doublespends? It's a number. For a $100 billion USD fee, any miner today would prioritize that doublespend.

I would certainly support BU paying @Peter R for probing the level where miners find it profitable to break the first seen rule. I think it's also a more 3D problem, because the other miners may choose to orphan bribed miners.

And yes, I'm shameless. And I try to make a profit here. But nobody's paying me anything to push an agenda. Is that true for you too, @cypherblock ?

 

[cypherblock]

But nobody's paying me anything to push an agenda

Then we can't we just have a reasonable discussion about this instead of pushing handcash and/or bsv agenda? Yeah it is a good idea to test double spends of all sorts (fast/slow/etc). What was the rebuttal to this (honest question): https://honest.cash/post/117 ?

 

[freetrader]

For a $100 billion USD fee, any miner today would prioritize that doublespend.

Leaving aside the fact that such a payment and fee isn't possible given the market cap of *any* crypto today ...

... how exactly did Handcash "solve" the problem? I didn't follow it too closely.

And do you know why are they centralizing their wallet by moving away from SPV?
From outside it looks like an admission that they won't be able to get SPV to work well on Bitcoin SV.

 

[Norway]

Then we can't we just have a reasonable discussion about this instead of pushing handcash and/or bsv agenda? Yeah it is a good idea to test double spends of all sorts (fast/slow/etc). What was the rebuttal to this (honest question): https://honest.cash/post/117 ?

Jeez @cypherblock, you are outdated. You live in the past. Your link is to the exact attack I refered to, and it's not possible to do anymore. The spanish Handcash guys solved it in 48 hours.

You can't repeat that attack.

It's solved. POP has improved their connection to miners.

Why do you pretend it's a problem, when it isn't anymore? You're dishonest or something else.

Doublespend the Point of Sale solution from the great Handcash team. Or GTFO!
[doublepost=1547776109,1547775192][/doublepost]@freetrader
Can you doublespend POP by Handcash today?

Or are you not able to do it?

My gut feeling tells me that you are just full of shit. You can't pull it off.

Prove me wrong.
[doublepost=1547776641][/doublepost]I know many smart people read this thread. Please step up and defend sanity and logic. The "CSW is bad so the alternative is always better" mindset has to die.

 

[Norway]

I'll push the issue further:

That some people here in this thread hate the fact that 0-conf doublespends is solved is a proof that they hate bitcoin.

They hate the fact that bitcoin works.

They want to grab power where they are the solution to problems that doesn't exist.

If you are competent and want to make money, shut up and make good stuff that works. Tech bureaucrats can burn in a warm place.

 

[cypherblock]

You're dishonest or something else.

Seriously? I'm like "honest question" and you decide "no he must be dishonest." Obviously I could have googled for like an hour to track down the history. Thought I would save some time and ask the "expert".

Sounds like someone did them a big favor by testing their earlier flawed first implementation and making them improve. Did same guy try to test their new improved setup yet? (yes I could google that too I guess, jeez).
[doublepost=1547779100][/doublepost]

That some people here in this thread hate the fact that 0-conf doublespends is solved is a proof that they hate bitcoin.

Just stop with your lies already. Holy shit. Thought you might be cool after you put out that paper on your new block communication thing. Now not so sure.

We would all be very happy if 0-conf can be solved completely by listening in on miner nodes as had been suggested years ago to solve part of the problem. That someone actually did it is great. That it hasn't been fully vetted (to my knowledge) and to have you here saying it is 100% solved is not so cool IMO.