Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

i personally don't think ppl are going to be uploading their family pics to the blockchain nor music. centralized services work pretty well for that with ppl still taking advantage of their free options to do so while sacrificing some of their privacy which doesn't matter to most anyways. what will require extra bandwidth and optimizations to propagation will be legal docs, share registries, investment/finance docs, IOW the more important stuff. not such a bad idea when you want immutable insurance. and who knows, maybe mere hash pointer references will suffice:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc-bch-bsv.html#3m
[doublepost=1552236023,1552234853][/doublepost]avg BTC blocksize; 642kB.

pathetic.

 

[rocks]

Good to see you back anyway. I feel much the same way (apart from the bit at the end about BSV. Though mostly because I'm playing "wait and see"). Though it's been a bit longer. I felt like Amaury performed a coup taking control of the development of ABC but the appropriate parties here disagree with me so I bow to their superior knowledge of the situation.

He did not perform a coup though, he was given the reins of control at the time of the fork when ABC became the reference client. This was a criticism of the fork, which was "why is the new developer with check in control be any better than the old developer with check in control". Worse, no one knew who Amaury was or what his thoughts were.

We now have 3 very different versions and visions of Bitcoin. That is a positive because the market now has multiple competing options which increases the chances of one winning in the end.

A frustrating aspect of Bitcoin so far is I feel those who understood to the original vision and paid attention to what was happening have lost out due to that knowledge. Think Mike Hearn who sold out right before the last massive bull run. While the majority who knows nothing about Bitcoin and only speculates in the price without trying to use or understand Bitcoin have done well with the price speculation.

And the reason price speculation only has won so far is no crypto-currency is really used at all. If BSV changes that and grows an ecosystem of useful applications with the corresponding usage increase, that would change and there is an opportunity to increase stakes in BSV in front of the crowd.

 

[Richy_T]

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's possible that some didn't want it because of Ver but my take on it was nearly 100% of anything relating it to Ver was disingenuous bullshit. Plus, while I've not always been his biggest fan, he's always seemed fairly genuine.

I'm not going to deride anyone for supporting BSV despite CSW but he's a bit close to the levers of power for my taste and I just don't trust his motivations.

 

[cypherdoc]

sure, trusting BSV/CSW development is a bit like walking up to the edge of a new huge inferno and then tiptoeing along the fireline trying to find your way out to save your life. you know you need to go towards it but there's danger. yet you really have no choice as the old flaming town you're leaving behind is being looted by a bunch of robber barons who really never cared about the town or it's civilization.

if there's a problem, just hard fork. BCH is doing it every 6m anyhoo. what's the problem?

 

[Richy_T]

He did not perform a coup though, he was given the reins of control at the time of the fork when ABC became the reference client. This was a criticism of the fork, which was "why is the new developer with check in control be any better than the old developer with check in control". Worse, no one knew who Amaury was or what his thoughts were.

I'd have to track back through posts to find references but the impression that I got was that a lot of the prep work for a viable fork had been done here, with which Amaury was involved and then due to "communication difficulties" (something that seems to happen frequently around BCH), Amaury steamed ahead with his own version which was then released as ABC, giving him a large amount of control of the project.

There has been some attempt to smooth this over with alternate implementations but since it seems the ABC team feels happy to change the protocol frequently, it's hard for them to get fully established and gain confidence (this is a technique Microsoft have used with the win32 API).

 

[bitsko]

I thought Mike Hearn would have been a great benevolent dictator, I thought at first Amaury did a good job as benevolent dictator, once I realized it came with ticker rights and staking concepts I realized I made a mistake.

If Its craig wright as the dictator until the protocol is fleshed out then so be it, at least it will remain proof of work.

BCH cannot have viable multiple implementations until amaury is done putting his pet projects into the protocol.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

It's possible that some didn't want it because of Ver but my take on it was nearly 100% of anything relating it to Ver was disingenuous bullshit. Plus, while I've not always been his biggest fan, he's always seemed fairly genuine.

I'm not going to deride anyone for supporting BSV despite CSW but he's a bit close to the levers of power for my taste and I just don't trust his motivations.

During the no2x fights I made short interviews with six people pro s2x and six people against. From the no2x warriors all but one said sth like 'I have no prob with 2mb blocks' , two even wanted it, 'but persons' .

I am also not really happy with nchain and so on, but at least they have a roadmap and a general concept of bitcoin I agree with. That's more than can be said of the other bitcoins around.

 

[cypherdoc]

I thought Mike Hearn would have been a great benevolent dictator, I thought at first Amaury did a good job as benevolent dictator, once I realized it came with ticker rights and staking concepts I realized I made a mistake.

of course we all gave him the benefit of the doubt at first but i think he fell into a trap; one set right here. i know that i, and maybe a few others, told him to go ahead and insert hard fork protocol changes if he felt necessary and leave them to the referendum of Nakamoto concensus as long as they generally represented the views of the community, good economics, and were technically sound. well, he took those words to heart but left out the last piece of that. now, we have this monstrosity of centralized 10 block rolling checkpoints POS and yet another split (that never was supposed to happen if he'd used good judgment). and now he wants Avalanche that can degrade PoW further. oh brother.

 

[rocks]

Possibly Satoshi didn't actually solve anything but just moved the problems elsewhere.

The problem with PoW to date is that Bitcoin has not been used in sufficient volume. If it is not used it is easy to change behavior.

However if Bitcoin is used in sufficient volume and by diverse applications, then at some point it achieves a critical mass that is difficult/impossible to change. Imagine if there were thousands of applications being used by over a billion people in all geographies, it would be near impossible to coordinate a change.

That is CSW's goal, provide a fixed yet broad set of functionality and let that scale up.

For example, at first I was disappointed by CSW's refusal to add a new OP_CHECKDATASIG op code and instead he pointed to an alternative work around that is a bit more cumbersome to use.

But what CSW is doing with this is removing energy and debate from "what Bitcoin should be" leaving instead the only area to focus on being "what to build on the Bitcoin that is". This is important. The #1 problem is since 2012 all of the energy and debate and coding has been on what functionality Bitcoin should have, imagine instead if that aspect was completely removed and the only area to spend effort was on what applications to build on top of a fixed Bitcoin. CSW is doing that with BSV and if that takes off it (hopefully) will solve the problems we've seen with PoW.
[doublepost=1552249579,1552248865][/doublepost]

... what defense would you have proposed - as a developer?

@freetrader, respectfully I completely reject the very premise that that question should even be asked. If Bitcoin has any value then it is anti-fragile and requires no protection. The concept of Gold as base money required zero protection, and that is why it worked for >5,000 years.

Similarly, Bitcoin either requires zero protection and protects itself, or it is worthless. If Bitcoin requires Greg or Amaury or yourself or myself to "protect" it, then it failed and is worthless.

Full stop.

So I reject the question, but will answer it anyway. 1) Amaury made the issue worse with rolling checkpoints because now it is easier for someone to break BCH. A miner with 5% of BTC hash power only needs 4 hours of hash power to attack BCH and force a permanent network split. BCH was always at risk of this, but without rolling checkpoints the network would heal automatically, now it won't. 2) Amaury was not defending BCH, he was defending himself and his position. Yes I read the history and the correct answer was to let the market decide, instead Amaury took steps to force his vision of BCH. What gives him that right? BCH is now Amaury coin, nothing more.
[doublepost=1552249929][/doublepost]

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

Exactly, 100% this. Amaury did not let the market decide which is what CSW put out there (as messy as it was). Instead Amaury subverted a market based solution to force his path and cement his control. Anyone who does that doesn't understand Bitcoin.

 

[Richy_T]

a bit like walking up to the edge of a new huge inferno and then tiptoeing along the fireline

It's more like hitch-hiking and deciding to accept a lift from a guy dressed as a clown.

He's up to something and whatever it is, running with him is a ticking timebomb (to mix some metaphors).
[doublepost=1552252546][/doublepost]

During the no2x fights I made short interviews with six people pro s2x and six people against. From the no2x warriors all but one said sth like 'I have no prob with 2mb blocks' , two even wanted it, 'but persons' .

Fair enough. I see that as being the disingenuous people I mentioned being somewhat successful in blackening Ver's name and giving him more prominence in the project than he actually had. But point taken that these people existed. There's little doubt that CSW has himself firmly planted in the leadership of BSV though.

 

[cypherdoc]

and if he is, who cares? if he delivers, fantastic. if not, fork.

 

[lunar]

Is it just my imagination or did the ABC client have a 'must fork' rule in it when we had the November split?

I see a lot of people saying it was nChain that caused the split, but for the months prior to the split ABC & associates were busy developing splitting tools and negotiating with exchanges that no matter what happened ABC would keep the BCH ticker. ABC had less hash and they knew it.

All of that left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Forcing CTOR was the real issue for me. It's right there in the introduction of the whitepaper

"In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions."

I don't see how much clearer that can be? Don't mess with the natural ordering.

It's very easy to blame nChain for the fork, but to me thats just posm. If you wanted Bitcoin as it was intended they had no choice.
[doublepost=1552255916][/doublepost]

respectfully I completely reject the very premise that that question should even be asked. If Bitcoin has any value then it is anti-fragile and requires no protection.

+100

 

[Norway]

100 million transactions per day on the public scaling testnet today.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/#raw_80d148b97ec29f95dfce7b2e1979b379c4f59f5b4a2e5c94546a41a273cfe9eb

That's 1157 tx/s. VISA has an average at 1700 tx/s.

EDIT: Well, the data from https://bitcoinscaling.io/ suggest 14 million tx/day.

Hmm, looks like the tx sizes vary a lot. Disregard all of the above

 

[cypherdoc]

that bitstagram is really awesome.

 

[lunar]

These guys are a light hearted gossip channel, almost like a crypto, comedy, radio show, but every now and again, some great nuggets.

Have a 10 min listen to this noob friendly, 0-Conf/instant transactions explainer
(timestamp @32:44 mins)


Brendan is from the tokenized team and satoshi shotgun.
lifting the limit from 25 on chained unconfirmed transactions to several thousand, with anticipated safety limits at 1/2mill $

Now imagine the worlds HF stock trading, all using millisecond chained unconfirmed Txs. it's going to be very embarrassing for those that try to insist 0conf isn't safe.

.........

Bitstagram fantastic, but it needs a way to curate your own stream. Potentially very risky viewing.


lol Roger
https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/#raw_86dfdcbcbb39bf99566de891b6c06f7712d89c0fc1cfcad79595e0c000fd86c3

 

[Zarathustra]

>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.

Storage is a normal money transaction. You are buying block space and pay for it.

 

[Zarathustra]

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).

u/Bitcoinopoly and u/BitcoinXio are going crazy:


And another one of their leading influencers on the verge of brain death:

 

[bitsko]

I enjoy the popularity of kainnaik for bch forums hahaha

 

[Richy_T]

and if he is, who cares? if he delivers, fantastic. if not, fork.

Because everyone should have their own chain.
[doublepost=1552310646][/doublepost]

I don't see how much clearer that can be? Don't mess with the natural ordering.

It's very easy to blame nChain for the fork, but to me thats just posm. If you wanted Bitcoin as it was intended they had no choice.
[doublepost=1552255916][/doublepost]
+100

I'm no fan of CTOR but the basic function of Bitcoin is that all transactions within a block are completed simultaneously. The order within the block is not important for that functionality and is a technical detail.

This is why I was advocating that nodes should have been able to accept *any* ordering and then different orderings could have competed in the open market and new schemes adapted as improvements were made. Unfortunately, what we got was agenda driven implementations and inflexibility. There's no objectivity within the dev sphere and it's a problem.

Edit: I absolutely blame the ABC dev team for the fork for what it's worth. I find Craig distasteful but he would never have been able to build momentum if ABC were behaving reasonably.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Because everyone should have their own chain.

there's another option and why I'd like to get the BSV block limit removed altogether asap; not upgrade your BSV full /mining node to a future malicious CSW hard fork (aka letting CSW fork himself off)

The only thing I'd like to know about the inherited ABC code though is if it contains that piece of code that deactivates existing versions whenever amaury pushes a hard fork upgrade. at least that's how I understood @freetrader's explanation of how it worked when we discussed that months ago.