Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@Christoph Bergmann

I wonder what's up too ..
Now, ask yourself where peter rizun is? Guy disappeared. Where's andrew stone? Missing. What about the people who said csw was the worst person in the universe, like Falkvinge?

Fucking M-I-S-S-I-N-G.
Oh my all of them simply went silent like a tomb!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure they hold lots of bch. /s

Didn't you get rid of csw? It was supposed to be an huuuuuuuuuuuuge celebration right? Right?

If it happens that csw really comes out as Satoshi - if - it might be a good chance to get back on the road."


Before you RV cucks call me out, I've never been a csw shill, I've even started a subreddit to make fun of BSV --> /r/BullShitVision. I'm just a girl seeking the truth so STFU.

I declare myself officially a bsv supporter, fuck bab, litecuck and bcore. Count me in fellas, it will be a long ride to the top.


https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/apltgr/rv_is_complicit_with_jihan/
 
Last edited:
Awesome post, I like how she uses language, it's almost literature.

And she has a point: What happened? Rick Falkvinge, not a single public comment - and I really like this guy - Jihan Wu, no longer Bitmain's chief, Roger Ver, pumping Amaury as "creator of Bitcoin Cash", Amaury silent beside the videomeetings, or mostly salty, and so on. Where are they?

Meanwhile CSW in constant conversation with the community, Jimmy Nyen flying through the world promoting Bitcoin, and so on.

I realized that I personally LIKE Craig Wright, independently of who he really is. He enjoys Whisky, poses with his library, promotes a wide education of math, law, economics, history, theology, has a balanced vision of privacy and transparency, and teaches to use your own mind ... It's really funny, he is the first character in Bitcoin I tend to admire, no matter if he is a crazy Satoshi or a brillant conman. Do I destroy the rest of my reputation saying this?

Edit: Here's an example flowing in about what I talk about. On twitter, someone brought up Craig pissing Julian Assange on the mailinglist: "Do we really need your amatuer political views?". In the signatur, Craig comes with a wonderful quote:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with
the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_
This is a book with essays of a theologist, and I never expected to find such a good quote from a theology book.

/End of edit

Anyway ... Peter and Andrew went public, in the very moment we continued this talk. Somewhere on r/btc

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/aphsc3/id_like_to_readhear_thoughts_from_bitcoin/

Andrew, signalling compliance with ABC's plans:

I like schnorr. Strategically I like BLS better but I get the impression that schnorr was already mostly done based off of core work so tactically it makes sense as it can be delivered quickly and doesn't stop deploying other crypto later.
But also complaining about ABC:

Third, graphene has been implemented and running just fine on mainnet for months now. Claims of experimental are kind of BS at this point, except that ABC will probably claim it experimental until they implement it. Sure there have been tweaks to increase compression, etc but that's it. Some people have made informal reddit-based claims of poor decode rates, but Graphene relies on having mostly synchronized mempools -- if you have a poorly connected node you may have decode failures. Its meant to be a very compact transfer format for the real "workhorse" nodes we envision, not the toy raspberry PIs running at home. But having said that, my home network has had no problems at all.
Fourth, if graphene fails to "decode" we fall back on Xthin or CB with minimal bandwidth loss. If Avalanche fails we could permanently fork the network, or allow transaction censorship.
and

Also, there is no preconsensus. There is only consensus. The preconsensus term is a lie to make the proposal easier to swallow. It is hiding the fact that Avalanche changes the consensus algorithm to a polling/POW hybrid, with POW in a very secondary role. Is the next step to remove it entirely? Let's not sugar coat it, let's focus on what it really is.
Peter explains why he is so silent:

I've got a baby on the way and we're building a new home, so I've been spending less time here.
and makes a brillant analogy:

I've also been feeling down about bitcoin since the hash war. Like /u/capt_roger_murdock said to me recently, between 2015 - 2017 bitcoin was a tree growing in a container too small for it to thrive. For over two years, we tried to move it to a larger pot without success. So we ended up taking a small cutting from the bitcoin tree and planting it in a much bigger pot. The little cutting admittedly looked kind of stupid in such a big pot, but with some watering and fertilizer we told ourselves that it would grow to fill that large container and more. But then just when the cutting was starting to establish some roots and to bud with new leaves, we decided to cut it in half, move each half to even bigger pots, and then trample and pee on both.
What he imho misses is his own rule in seeding the toxicity towards one person that deepened the split before it happened.

He also comments on the state of Bitcoin Unlimited

I think the reality is that BU as a power center was paralyzed by the split, as our views sat somewhere between ABC and SV (ABC is science-based like BU but wants to make more significant changes and do so at a faster pace than BU, while SV wants a slower pace of change like BU but is largely faith-based according to the gospel of Craig Wright). After the split, BCH is more "ABC" than prior to the split (e.g., bitcoin.com used to run BU for mining but can't any longer [1]), and BSV is purely "SV." BU as a governance body is less relevant now.

[1] because of the largely-undocumented consensus changes ABC made to implement re-org protection [the changes were made for a good reason, don't get me wrong, but these rapid consensus level changes basically forced all miners and economically-significant node operators to centralized around the ABC implementation to ensure consensus if further rapid changes were required].
He's also not happy about the conceptual volatility of ABC:

Last fall, /u/s1ckpig and I organized the Instant Transactions Workshop in Gargnano, Italy. It was a great deal of work to bring the seventeen or so BCH devs together in Italy for 3 days, but I thought it was worthwhile. The "consensus" that came out of that meeting was to implement double-spend proof relaying, as this solved both the fast-respend and reverse-respend attacks, and required minimal development.
and agrees with Andrew about the selling of Avalanche es preconsensus.

I'll echo what Andrew said above: calling the Avalanche proposals being discussed "pre-consensus" is a misnomer IMO. Calling it pre-consensus sounds like what's being discussed is less of a change than changing bitcoin's consensus ruleset. But what were discussing is more of a change than changing bitcoin's consensus ruleset. We're not just talking about adding or removing some static rule (such as "blocks cannot be larger than 1 MB") -- we're talking about giving a new group the power to subjectively define any transaction as invalid.
The trouble now is that Avalanche partly competes with this proposal and thus no one is working on double-spend proofs any longer.

Sorry for reposten your comments, @theZerg and @Peter R

How about the Bitcoin Unlimited ranks - the two Peters, the two Andrews - do an AMA in this forum? Maybe this will help to revitalize it again.

I have a preditcion for the future: BU will protest the changes ABC wants, discussion will heat up a bit, ABC starts another "education campaign" accompanied by rBTC becoming hostile toward BU again, and finally a meetup will settle things, so that BU agrees with what ABC is planning.
 
Last edited:

go1111111

Active Member
@go1111111
No, it's too risky and no point for me.
You don't have to bet the full amount. I'll take bets of any size. If you're confident that CSW isn't bullshitting, then accepting this bet essentially means free money to you. We'll find a neutral arbitrator and use 2 of 3 multisig. What's so risky about it?

Yes, let me know if CSW or anyone on the BSV forum wants to take me up on my offer.

I'm not surprised that no one wants to take the other side of this bet -- it's pretty clear that CSW is bullshitting.

If any of you actually believe CSW but don't want to bet for any reason, I have a request: reply with the probability that the Australian government will confirm that CSW submitted this document to them in 2001. My estimate is 1%.
 

cypherblock

Active Member
Nov 18, 2015
163
182
I've been discussing in some other places (we are still working on best discussion area) Bip47 re-usable payment codes and ways that can be better adopted, for instance linked to known "handles", etc. so that someone can simply send payment to @cypherblock (or similar). Curious as to people's thoughts.

First off, there are other, non-payment code, "solutions" like Handcash wallet with their handles. Handcash does not use payment codes, but does, sometimes, give out new addresses for a handle, and has some privacy issues, IMO. @Norway I know you are huge fan. I like the fact that they actually have something working. The approach is simple but has some drawbacks.

Then there are existing bip47 wallets like Samurai wallet (only btc). I don't even know if they have a handle addressing system, I suppose they must but haven't investigated too much

Then there is the cashaccount.info system which currently is not using payment codes, but I have seen Johnathan Silverblood (developer there) discuss adopting payment codes to this system. One issue I have with this is the naming is odd, like my handle would be cypherblock#25385.23 or something. Doesn't a difficult name defeat part of the purpose (easy to recite and remember, identify)? Also I think there are potential issues in having a handle addressing system that is based on another layer of nodes validating rules with no skin in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
I'm not surprised that no one wants to take the other side of this bet -- it's pretty clear that CSW is bullshitting.
Nobody knows when Elon Musk, Craig Wright et al. are bullshitting and when they aren't. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. That doesn't answer the question whether they are the main part of the team or not.

http://www.glitch.news/2018-02-06-apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-says-elon-musk-is-essentially-a-con-artist.html


If any of you actually believe CSW but don't want to bet for any reason, I have a request: reply with the probability that the Australian government will confirm that CSW submitted this document to them in 2001. My estimate is 1%.
There is no such thing as a probability. If they will confirm, then the probability will have been exactly 100%. If they won't, the probability will have been 100% too.

For Diodorus, if a future event is not going to happen, then it was true in the past that it would not happen. Since every past truth is necessary (proposition 1), it was necessary that in the past it would not happen. Since the impossible cannot follow from the possible (proposition 2), it must have always been impossible for the event to occur. Therefore if something will not be true, it will never be possible for it to be true, and thus proposition 3 is shown to be false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_argument
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
What's so risky about it?
I have no knowledge about how the events will unfold. What if the parties reach an agreement before the case starts, or the Kleiman side withdraw the evidence? I don't want to bet on these things.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I've been discussing in some other places (we are still working on best discussion area) Bip47 re-usable payment codes and ways that can be better adopted, for instance linked to known "handles", etc. so that someone can simply send payment to @cypherblock (or similar). Curious as to people's thoughts.

First off, there are other, non-payment code, "solutions" like Handcash wallet with their handles. Handcash does not use payment codes, but does, sometimes, give out new addresses for a handle, and has some privacy issues, IMO. @Norway I know you are huge fan. I like the fact that they actually have something working. The approach is simple but has some drawbacks.

Then there are existing bip47 wallets like Samurai wallet (only btc). I don't even know if they have a handle addressing system, I suppose they must but haven't investigated too much

Then there is the cashaccount.info system which currently is not using payment codes, but I have seen Johnathan Silverblood (developer there) discuss adopting payment codes to this system. One issue I have with this is the naming is odd, like my handle would be cypherblock#25385.23 or something. Doesn't a difficult name defeat part of the purpose (easy to recite and remember, identify)? Also I think there are potential issues in having a handle addressing system that is based on another layer of nodes validating rules with no skin in the game.
I think ID-based encryption (IBE) is an interesting concept that can be used for static handles and an alternative approach to payment codes.

https://github.com/monkeylord/bitcoin-ibe
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
I want to see a blocksize reducing softfork on BTC and I want to see PoW defenses to protect developer rule (like avalanche) on BCH.

is that wrong?

small, medium and large, all unique.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

Manfred

Member
Feb 1, 2019
42
56
All of a sudden xrp is worth half as much as BTC and you instantly know where the real bitcoin is if banks blatantly ignore you. Calculation is based on total coins not circulating no need to explain what is going on here.
https://www.forbescrypto.com/crypto
First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
I have a preditcion for the future: BU will protest the changes ABC wants, discussion will heat up a bit, ABC starts another "education campaign" accompanied by rBTC becoming hostile toward BU again, and finally a meetup will settle things, so that BU agrees with what ABC is planning.
i think it's too late for that. i think BU is dead. i don't say that with glee as i helped conceptualize and financially supported it. i just think they're exhausted.

edit: as am i from time to time. divide and conquer works.
[doublepost=1549999993,1549999390][/doublepost]
You don't have to bet the full amount. I'll take bets of any size. If you're confident that CSW isn't bullshitting, then accepting this bet essentially means free money to you. We'll find a neutral arbitrator and use 2 of 3 multisig. What's so risky about it?

Yes, let me know if CSW or anyone on the BSV forum wants to take me up on my offer.

I'm not surprised that no one wants to take the other side of this bet -- it's pretty clear that CSW is bullshitting.

If any of you actually believe CSW but don't want to bet for any reason, I have a request: reply with the probability that the Australian government will confirm that CSW submitted this document to them in 2001. My estimate is 1%.
c'mon Elliott. you're better than this. betting is not a dick measuring exercise. and you really should stay quiet after dumping BSV at 35 or whatever at the time (bottom). what you don't realize is that ppl here are mostly non devs (unlike yourself) with other successful lives and really don't care or won't bother to take the time to setup a childish bet on these big things. i just don't have the time or care to bet someone i've never met and quibble over the internet on the nuances, exceptions, restrictions, risks et al that it takes to set bets up. mind you, back in my more childish early Bitcoin years, i used to try and intimidate ppl too by offering bets. what i realized is that ppl just can't be bothered as opposed to it meaning they aren't convicted. you're reading way too much into these things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
speaking about non devs: it seems to me that an assumption has developed among devs that participants that don't contribute code (for whatever reason of their own) don't get fundamental technical aspects of bitcoin, or are easily fooled by technobabble.

this is a reminder to question your assumptions, and to check your own blindspots. also keep in mind why BU was set up the way it was.

PS @cypherdoc - please hang in there. you've made right call after right call -- for example sounding the bell early on about the dangers of semiannual protocol updates. we need all the clarity we can get going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

majamalu

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
144
775
c'mon Elliott. you're better than this. betting is not a dick measuring exercise. and you really should stay quiet after dumping BSV at 35 or whatever at the time (bottom). what you don't realize is that ppl here are mostly non devs (unlike yourself) with other successful lives and really don't care or won't bother to take the time to setup a childish bet on these big things. i just don't have the time or care to bet someone i've never met and quibble over the internet on the nuances, exceptions, restrictions, risks et al that it takes to set bets up. mind you, back in my more childish early Bitcoin years, i used to try and intimidate ppl too by offering bets. what i realized is that ppl just can't be bothered as opposed to it meaning they aren't convicted. you're reading way too much into these things.
Remember pirateat40? One of the factors that pushed him into the abyss was a bet he was forced to accept in order to keep his scam afloat.

But in this case it doesn't need to be that complicated. He who loses and does not pay simply loses his reputation. That could be good enough.

I don't see it as a dick measurement contest. I see it as a good way to determine to what extent someone is willing to accept the consequences of his alleged convictions.

If no one is willing to take the bet, that doesn't mean we now have hard proof in favour of the challenging party, but we do have valuable information.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

Golarz Filip

New Member
Dec 22, 2015
11
52
i think it's too late for that. i think BU is dead.
I'm not a BU member, but from the inception BU was (and I hope still is) the only implementation that is open to dialog, trying to stay above the politics. No other coin has this kind of alternative client. Maybe it's me being delusional, but for me BU is a irreplaceable asset in bitcoin space.
 
Last edited:

cypherblock

Active Member
Nov 18, 2015
163
182
I think ID-based encryption (IBE) is an interesting concept that can be used for static handles and an alternative approach to payment codes.
Its a bit hard to follow that write up. It looks like they are relying on a shared secret that they call "Id" like their example Id="buy coffee", but they don't explain how that Id is transmitted, or anything. So Bip47 payment codes and notification transactions essentially solve this problem.

Anyway if there is a better write up of this let me know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
just like it became clear that BTC's model of growth by second-layer scaling is not likely to work, as the second layer is poorly conceived economically and technically, i am coming to the conclusion that BCH's model of growth by attracting a massive number of end users to the base layer via advanced features will not work, for at least four reasons:

(1) the vast majority of end users are likely neither technologically nor financially prepared to handle money through a currency other than their national one, or, in edge cases, the reserve.

(2) disruption of this ingrained model is unlikely to happen via a product such as BCH, whose growth model (massive end user adoption) is undermined by its leadership's willingness to allow billions of dollars of users' funds to be wiped out overnight in order to enforce perceived protocol enhancements.

(3) such strategic failures are not understood as fundamental weaknesses; rather they are reinforced, have been and will be repeated. precedence of tech minutiae over fiscal prudence are not the hallmarks of a currency, but of a software project.

(4) the project's leadership is firmly entrenched and there is no path to change it.


now consider a completely different growth model: attract institutional use and large capital via transactional capacity, compliance*, and protocol stability.

will it work? possibly not, but it's an alternative that shows advantages over the two models previously discussed. but to begin to see that one needs to overcome fixation on personalities. if your reaction to the above is going to be at the level of 'but such and such a person did this or said that', we have lost the ability to have a productive conversation.

edit:*
 
Last edited:

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
The false lure of anonymity

"When I designed Bitcoin, I was extremely careful in the node design. At scale, a blockchain is an immutable evidence store that acts in layers. Users are able to transact as if it was materialised cash and not a dematerialised electronic transfer. On an interesting side note, a lot of the economic design came from the study into alternative financial systems including Islamic jurisprudence, which I learned during my comparative international-law studies. Bitcoin is in fact (صكوك‎) ṣukūk in nature, and operates as a depreciating system within the constraints of one of the largest banking formats globally, one that allows smart contracts such as ones that comply with Murabaha, Ijara, Istisna, Musharaka, Istithmar, etc., while simultaneously allowing typical methods of Western finance."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

TFOB

New Member
May 16, 2017
7
23
2019 Bitcoin Cash Developers Meeting #4

On Thursday February 14th a fourth public Bitcoin Cash development meeting will be held at 15:00 UTC.

The goal and focus for the meeting is:
Discuss items ready for the May upgrade plus preparations for testing.

This again will be a video meeting where a number of developers actively working on Bitcoin Cash will participate and others are welcome to attend.

The recording of the January 31st and earlier meetings can be watched at thefutureofbitcoin.cash
Attendees can join shortly before 15:00 UTC by following the Zoom link below. When an email address is requested by Zoom, any x@y.com style email will do.

For Obvious reasons we do request attendees to use the name by which they are known within the Bitcoin Cash community, The system allows attendees to ask questions using the Q&A function.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/686662554

Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16465588656,,686662554# or +16699006833,,686662554#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 686 662 554
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ad4sm3XufQ