Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

"SegWit ist Shit, Lightning is Shit, Blockstream is Shit -- oh, look here, we'll implement Adam Backs petproject to make Bitcoin Cash ready for Lightning"

https://gist.github.com/markblundeberg/a3aba3c9d610e59c3c49199f697bc38b

Aaaand

"ten days ago we did not know if Schnorr goes in the fork, and we don't know it by now. But you better hurry to discuss our implementation, because in two weeks it will be too late, because feature freeze."

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Christoph Bergmann
I neither see SegWit nor Blockstream in that proposal..
I still think Lightning is shit, but payment channels are a useful idea.

And apart from that: Most people were never against people trying to develop something like LN. People were against crippling the "base layer" for the LN.

I don't think that this stuff is necessary but I also don't see the problem.. as long as we get a dynamic blocksize asap.

 

[lunar]

Rumour says, this is just the beginning.

I don't normally post cat photos.... but when I do

https://bico.media/8d29c20fd086ad5aa859037eb9bb25aaf6ebb84706965c4c662bbdb40e9cba02

Bitcoins first ever streaming video

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann
I neither see SegWit nor Blockstream in that proposal..
I still think Lightning is shit, but payment channels are a useful idea.

And apart from that: Most people were never against people trying to develop something like LN. People were against crippling the "base layer" for the LN.

I don't think that this stuff is necessary but I also don't see the problem.. as long as we get a dynamic blocksize asap.

I see it more like a symptom of the way of thinking ... Both add complexity, LN harms the value proposition, as it is a payment network for different coins, and when fees are low, there is very little need for it...

Schnorr is a bit of a fundamental change, as it can change the rules of how the system processes inputs ... I also smell complexity...

Dynamic limit is not in the may fork, for whatever reasons, and I doubt you get it anytime soob

 

[cypherblock]

Do you prefer

I prefer interesting honest discussion, not re-hashing old memes like "blockstream-core" or "luke-jr=evil" or whatever.

I you want to talk honestly about any technology, or business or how to spread adoption (other than through social media bashing of other side), then I'm good with that.

If on the other hand it is just "BTC maximilists ruin everything...ABC sucks...LN will fail...SV is so great because no changes..." without out any real open honest discussion, well that is just tiresome to me. Maybe others like it, I don't know.

 

[_bc]

@Christoph Bergmann
I neither see SegWit nor Blockstream in that proposal..

...

I don't think that this stuff is necessary but I also don't see the problem.. as long as we get a dynamic blocksize asap.

Well, I don't see dynamic blocksize in the proposal. A big part of the BCH split was over block size. I think the longer BCH doesn't put the blocksize debate to bed, the more chances it has to split again.

Yes, many bigger-blockers moved to BSV. But, not all. And if there's anything left in BCH for bankers to fear, you can be sure they'll find the lowest-hanging fruit of issues to divide and conquer with.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I prefer interesting honest discussion, not re-hashing old memes like "blockstream-core" or "luke-jr=evil" or whatever.

I you want to talk honestly about any technology, or business or how to spread adoption (other than through social media bashing of other side), then I'm good with that.

If on the other hand it is just "BTC maximilists ruin everything...ABC sucks...LN will fail...SV is so great because no changes..." without out any real open honest discussion, well that is just tiresome to me. Maybe others like it, I don't know.

Yes, I understand your point.

IMHO, without bashing core bitcoin cash makes not much sense and is just another altcoin. If core did not suck with bitcoin, the question, why not use ltc, dash, xrp instead of bch is legit.

A good example is the latest video of coin base paying with bch. Good job, bch. Most in btc don't believe that bitcoin can be that fast without ln, because they don't remember how btc worked before core Intentional delayed transaction propagation. They think that the limitations core added to Bitcoin are some kind of physical law. IMHO it is important to educate.

Also, I just wanted to share my impressions on a place where I am understood. Since I increased my physical presence on meetups and so on, I learned that so many people in the space internalized cores dogma that bitcoin is a shitty payment system without lightning. I'm just surprised how large the damage is they did to the perception of bitcoin, and I don't think you get over this without bashing core ..

On another side, the antagonism here made it hard to have technical discussions about bch / bsv, so I thought my post about blockstream could help to remember the common ground.

 

[bitsko]

BIP62 + Schnorr is the new segwit

There is now a scenario wherein if it is not 'safe' to raise the blocksize cap past a certain point, offchain solutions can be implemented.

Full circle.

Amazing.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@bitsko
AFAIK the dynamic blocksize limit proposal by imaginary_username has been accepted by ABC generally.

 

[cypherdoc]

waaah:

[doublepost=1548966152][/doublepost]

@bitsko
AFAIK the dynamic blocksize limit proposal by imaginary_username has been accepted by ABC generally.

what makes you claim this?

 

[Golarz Filip]

Ok guys, I'm trying to understand this.

Is "dynamic blocksize limit", you're talking about, same as "adaptive blocksize limit" proposed by Stephen Pair around 2016?

What I remember it was setting block size limit based on multiplied median of recent block sizes.

And is it true that ABC is an acronym of Adjustable Blocksize Cap? I believe I read about this here.

So does "adjustable" means allowing manual configuration of the blocksize in node client by miners? Or "adjustable" by some dynaminc / adaptive algorithm build in consensus rules?

 

[cypherdoc]

wow, is 50% going to be another magic number? :

The current state of BCH(ABC) development

 

[freetrader]

Ok guys, I'm trying to understand this.

Is "dynamic blocksize limit", you're talking about, same as "adaptive blocksize limit" proposed by Stephen Pair around 2016?

What I remember it was setting block size limit based on multiplied median of recent block sizes.

And is it true that ABC is an acronym of Adjustable Blocksize Cap? I believe I read about this here.

So does "adjustable" means allowing manual configuration of the blocksize in node client by miners? Or "adjustable" by some dynaminc / adaptive algorithm build in consensus rules?

Yes, ABC means 'adjustable blocksize cap'.

The first point to be made was that the blocksize was a consensus parameter that users should be able to adjust. BU already made this point, but took it to Emergent Consensus.

As long as users can set the blocksize limit themselves, that's already the fundamental building block of emergent consensus. Of course we knew that there are technical limits and obstacles in the software that need to be removed step by step.

The current adaptive blocksize cap proposal is the one by @imaginary_username which is basically an extension of Stephen Pair's work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ub7an/a_proposal_for_adaptive_maxblocksize_cap_that/

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/149

 

[freetrader]

This SBI?


Looks like they're into being serially scammed.

 

[cypherdoc]

or that they just lost patience in existing coins like every other financial institution and turned to a second rate alternative before finding a true scaling sound money.

 

[cypherdoc]

fun listen. Toddler hasn't changed any of his views, not surprisingly. and our recollection of history is spot on; he doesnt' think Bitcoin works. listen at 16:00 but the whole thing is a fun walk back in time:

https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/peter-todd-on-the-essence-of-bitcoin

 

[cypherblock]

And he talks about Gavin saying Bitcoin could have an unlimited blocksize.

 

[Norway]

@cypherblock
We were just one vote away from making BU an unbounded client with BUIP 101.

I wonder what the future of BU is.

@theZerg has a lot more power to change/affect the BCH protocol than the BSV protocol.

Bitcoin Unlimited has zero influence on the BSV protocol.

I could be wrong, but I think BU has to beat / match SV on scaling or die. If BU's client can't keep up with the upcoming stress tests on BSV, it's dead.

 

[freetrader]

@Norway : show me on the mempool map where the recent stress test (100MB block or sustained 64MB blocks) traffic was propagated ordinarily over the BSV network.

I've looked at the 30 days chart, and its basically flat around the time of the stress test. Which suggests that once again, these were just blocks mined in-house, with make-work transactions.

This doesn't even demonstrate that the Bitcoin SV software can compete with what BU's clients already showed on the Gigablock testnet.

 

[cypherdoc]

And he talks about Gavin saying Bitcoin could have an unlimited blocksize.

Gavin's right; because miners have already shown they will impose their self selected blocksize limit. the more capable and aggressive miners will push theirs higher and higher dragging along the unwilling in a race to world dominance and profitability levels. price and network growth will increase hand in hand but only if the protocol itself is removed from economic restriction.