Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

except that you subverted the "buy more hash" PoW strategy for BSV, and Bitcoin as a concept, with 10 block rolling checkpoints.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9xiw03/checkpoints_were_actually_added_by_satoshi/

 

[cypherdoc]

here we go again. @freetrader focusing on one little thing from 2010 while ignoring everything else:

1. Satoshi: "I went about 200 blocks back."
2. early days of Bitcoin when there was no price and so little hashpower.
3. everything since then with Core only implementing checkpoints VERY sparingly, the last one before the latest being back in 2014, IOW 5 yrs btwn checkpoints.
4. ignoring that checkpoints are not used to defend against a 51% hash attacks but only as a means to speed up the initial download for bootstrapping nodes.
5. ignoring/forgetting my in depth review of the Solidcoin and other Shitcoin histories where they tried to defend their sha256-poor altcoins with just this method of rolling checkpoints against attacking miners like BitcoinExpress who did much to rid the space at the time of these scammers.

one has to wonder who this @freetrader is. on the face of it, we owe him gratitude for hard forking BCH and adding relay protection to ensure the split. and then he walks away. with the benefit of hindsight, i tell myself that's exactly what a gvt attacker trying to split BTC/Bitcoin would have done. but TBH, those thoughts never occurred to me at that time. it's only when I later found out he had left BCH dev immediately (it didn't occur to me at the time because I wasn't aware he had departed since there never was any real announcement) but really now when he constantly attacks what i consider to be the purest original Bitcoin; BSV. and by using personal attacks focusing on one person. there's no denying he's a smart guy. but these incessant obsessive nonsensical personal attacks puzzle me.

 

[freetrader]

Um, who's doing the personal attacks around here. You ask yourself.

ignoring that checkpoints are not used to defend against a 51% hash attacks but only as a means to speed up the initial download for bootstrapping nodes

From the same thread, you selectively omit Satoshi's own words:

The security safeguard makes it so even if someone does have more than 50% of the network's CPU power, they can't try to go back and redo the block chain before yesterday. (if you have this update)

In other words, he was protecting against what we call a 51% attack.

 

[cypherdoc]

b/c the quality of your arguments make very little sense. and you're the one who started it on CSW months ago.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Well, all we have to do is wait and see. Which is what I'm doing anyway.

Though at this stage, I'm beginning to think that even if (the incredibly narcissistic) CSW wasn't on the scene, BSV (which model I would favor otherwise) would still be prone to exactly the same issues as the others. Possibly Satoshi didn't actually solve anything but just moved the problems elsewhere.

Yeah, maybe you have a point. If pow was the solution, we wouldn't have years of social problems about it.

But it's strange that you would favor the model of bsv if there was not csw. That's an exact copy of what we had with btc, all those people which wanted big blocks, but didn't want it because of Roger and so on. It seems really easy to make people reject what they like by targeting someone who represents it

 

[freetrader]

b/c the quality of your arguments make very little sense. and you're the one who started it on CSW months ago.

I started it? How?

 

[Zarathustra]

The reality is more that big businesses said "fuck that" and diverted sufficient BTC hash to completely ruin CSW's plan, while at the same time enacting rock-solid protection against the dishonest miners via checkpoints.

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
The North Corean miners protect the chain against the dishonest miners.”

― George Orwell, 1984

 

[cypherdoc]

In other words, he was protecting against what we call a 51% attack.

again, it was a completely different time when Bitcoin had no price and no hash. today, BCH had the backing of Bitmain and Roger, and a price on the several hundreds, who was shamelessly mining the BTC chain during all of this with plenty of hash they could've mobilized to BCH to protect it w/o using checkpoints or the exchanges. if that had happened and BCH won, fine. but Amaury in his infinite wisdom decided to plot with exchanges and change the protocol to insert checkpoints. why are you STILL defending this.?

>I started it? How?

you've been hammering him here in this thread since what, the Fall? i grew tired of it and decided to step in. i said this much at the time.

 

[freetrader]

why are you STILL defending this?

Because of the unanswered question I posed to rocks, before our little pas-de-deux.

BCH had the backing of Bitmain who was shamelessly mining the BTC chain

The events during the split showed quite clearly (at least it was clear to me) that Calvin had been mining on BTC as well beforehand, and probably brought over near as much of his contingent as he could very shortly before the fork.

This exposed the hypocrisy of this argument which you are trying to make against Bitmain (who btw are of course in no way unique in being profit-oriented miners of both chains prior to the fork - many other pools could be listed but never are...)

you've been hammering him here in this thread since what, the Fall?

I admit only to sometimes pointing out another glaring deception he trots out. I wouldn't call it "hammering", just an iota of payback for the damage that he has caused to Bitcoin, but that you feel the need to white knight this fraud and openly admit to not caring about his fraudulent acts says more about you than Craig.

@Zarathustra : shoo

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader still defending checkpoints, eh? you seem conflicted, tiptoeing back and forth, not sure when to defend them or not. and now deflecting to yet another personality attack on CSW while trying to impugn me by association.

 

[Norway]

Though mostly because I'm playing "wait and see"

Well, my company is not playing "wait and see". We go full speed, establishing a protocol for contactless payments and token handling with lightweight devices like JavaCards.

We do it exclusively on BSV and we will try to prevent it from being copied on other chains. The sooner we get 1 global chain, the better. Network effect is very important.

 

[majamalu]

wasn't this guy one of my nemeses here in this thread several years ago, the John Nash fanboy i had intense debates with? look at him now:

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-re-solution-of-john-nashs-ideal-money-and-satoshi-s-vision-f01b4a967c67

for some of them it take fricking YEARS.

From the article:

"The want to bring our legacy systems down is Marxist."

What?

The state monopoly of the issuance of money is arguably even worst, in the long run, than the state monopoly of the production and distribution of food.

Our monetary system is proof that the Marxists have won. If you want to preserve it, you are the Marxist.

 

[Zarathustra]

> The state monopoly of the issuance of money is arguably even worst, in the long run, than the state monopoly of the production and distribution of food. Our monetary system is proof that the Marxists have won. If you want to preserve it, you are the Marxist.

It is the state who defines money since the invention of the society (=patriarchy=collectivism) 10'000 years ago. Everything else is a more or less liquid commodity. (CSW: "Bitcoin is a commodity ledger"). That's true. According to this fact you are all (CSW included) Marxists as soon as you defend money and the society. The so called anarcho capitalists are Marxists and collectivists too. They just don't know it because they are not familiar with the history of anarchy and patriarchy.

The alternative to the society (=collectivism/economy/patriarchy) is anarchy (=selfsufficient communities=no economy). Societies are growing rampant until they collapse. Always. Production growth = destruction growth. Communities in anarchy don't grow, because they don't need to trade and don't need money, which is debt, which has to be served with surplus production. The first debt (first layer) is the debt to the state (tax/tribute). That starts the whole thing because we the people are now forced into surplus production, which needs additional debt to serve the first debt, the mother of all debt, the debt to the state, which is debt to ourselves. A true anarchist is someone who rejects the society in all of its manifestations, because the society is the antithesis to anarchy.

This time it will be the same as always: It works until it doesn't.

 

[Zarathustra]

The website is working fine for me.

Weird. I don't have access to ledgerjournal.org

Thanks for your detailed comment

 

[freetrader]

I'll check back on this thread in a while to see if there's a response from rocks on that question I put to him.

 

[bitsko]

"Welcome back @rocks. Just out of curiosity, if you had been lead developer of one of the leading BCH protocol implementations, and had the responsibility of making a suggestion for how to weather the 51% attack that was threatened and - from signs observed during the November fork - executed, ...

... what defensewould you have proposed - as a developer?"

How about a principled stance of not implementing weak subjectivity, and engaging honorably in a battle for governance via the proof of work mechanism?

 

[cypherdoc]

one of the main architects of the BCH split, Andrea Brekken aka Bitcoinopoly, has already expressed deep regret over implementing checkpoints and is considering defecting to BSV i hear (could be total rumor who knows).

Why this obsession over picking on newly returning @rocks for his development opinion on checkpoints. can't stick up for yourself @freetrader?

 

[freetrader]

I'm just interested in his opinion as it's a basis of his criticism / disillusionment with the way BCH has gone.

I'm not interested in your opinion cypherdoc, I've heard enough of it.

 

[cypherblock]

@rocks lots of interesting points in your post. I do wish however this thread becomes less about BSV vs ABC vs BTC and more about the tech and/or opportunities afforded by those. Lets also move off the personality driven discussion CSW vs Amaury vs Greg (which I think you are aligned with).

So on that note:

BSV however allows storage and computation to happen independently of full nodes and creates a better balance

So if BSV is removing OP_RETURN limits then it will still require full nodes to download the complete OP_RETURN data, even if they end up pruning that data. So a lot of network traffic and temporary storage just for data that most nodes will prune. I suppose though that the benefit is strong economic backing of that data compared with systems that just hash into op_return and store file data elsewhere, which only provides economic backing of the hash, not the data itself.

Computation: You mentioned computation off chain, but not sure what you mean. Yes I can store a program in some large op_return and let others run that program. Sure. I can also store smart contracts in op_return. What I can't do without changing the protocol more, is ensure that smart contract execution is backed by BSV proof of work and BSV node validation. Even ideas like Bitcoin Token project by Clemens Ley (and arguably patented by nChain) AFIK require other nodes running another protocol to validate execution, similar to Omni or other protocols. But I never could parse all of Clemens's claims about it.

Both of these items (storage and computation), are more of the direction that Ethereum went. Frankly Eth is IMO under appreciated by BTC/BCH/BSV folks because of tribal bias. It has smart contracts, node based execution of smart contract code and storage of its data outputs, and people are building Swarm for a fully decentralized file storage system linked to Eth chain. They have dapps, and even if you disparage the ones currently in place perhaps you can appreciate the concept.

So BSV heading more into the computation/storage realm is interesting, but doing that without changing the protocol will give them limitations that they might not be able to surmount. It also completely shifts the idea of Bitcoin as global money to something else. More than likely though I see BSV being used as base storage and money layer and other code/chains being used to do further work.

 

[cypherdoc]

>It also completely shifts the idea of Bitcoin as global money to something else.

I initially was worried about this but the more I thought about it, the more I think many if not most non data oriented full node users will just prune the OP return and continue to use the base layer as sound money. this isn't really a new argument as well and goes back several years in concept.