Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

This is why I was advocating that nodes should have been able to accept *any* ordering

I'm inclined to agree, yet due to the competition between miners, they are searching for reasons to reject each others blocks. Hence a miner adding complexity for others, by using their own ordering schema, no doubt adds some latency. Any latency, is potential loss of profit. Essentially if there's profit to be made by individual miners changing their ordering it will occur naturally.

The simplest equilibrium is a dumb base layer, where each miner orders naturally. I'm a big advocate for a stable and unchanging protocol. It's easy to forget how much we've learned over the years. If things keep changing, it makes it very difficult for new developers and companies to catch up to the point where they can build something worthwhile.

You find this in lots of small businesses, one IT guy makes themselves difficult to replace, by building in complexity. KISS
[doublepost=1552318864][/doublepost]So happy that all these tool sets are finally being built. It's what I expected to see in 2012-2014 but instead we got altcoins


"With C://, 100% deterministic programs over Bitcoin now becomes possible. Remember, applications are nothing more than a collection of files. Having an immutable file is only one piece of the puzzle because apps must still rely on 3rd party file servers, which involves trust."

 

[cypherdoc]

u/Bitcoinopoly and u/BitcoinXio are going crazy:


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

interesting how @deadalnix plays the integrity holier than thou card in that thread; yet won't answer direct questions about Bitmain compensation.

 

[Norway]

 

[Richy_T]

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.

Isn't it that it forces a fork every six months so you have to upgrade? That requirement could be (code)-forked out. I can understand why it sounded like a good idea at the time but it's turned out to be toxic.
[doublepost=1552351688][/doublepost]

I'm inclined to agree, yet due to the competition between miners, they are searching for reasons to reject each others blocks.

I don't think they really are, especially if there is decent competition going on. They want to be accepting blocks that everyone else is accepting or they may end up building on a block that gets orphaned. This pushes them towards transmitting blocks as efficiently as possible. Natural ordering is a fine default but if you can handle anything that is logically valid, that's a good place to be.

Parallel validation fixes most potential issues with this somewhat anyway.

 

[Zarathustra]

EPA (European Patent Office) patents per capita 2018

956 Switzerland
416 NL
411 Danmark
403 Sweden
332 Germany
312 Finland
261 Austria
204 Belgium
179 Japan
173 Israel
158 Ireland
153 France
142 South Korea
132 USA
114 Norway
111 Puerto Rico
88 GB
87 Singapore
75 Taiwan
71 Italy

 

[cypherdoc]

I really like the sounds of this. like I said, the faster we get to the ideal protocol rule set (unlimited blocks) the sooner we don't have to upgrade to a malicious CSW hard fork if and when it comes;

preparing the path for 512MB blocks this summer and 2GB blocks by the end of the year.

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/03/11/bsv-scaling-test-network-sustains-128mb-blocks-for-36-hours/

 

[priestc]

It's interesting to see this thread still going. I used to post here in 2015 before the BCH fork and during the segwit/blocksize debate. It's also interesting to see so many people turning away from BCH and towards BSV. I'm also strongly against the direction BCH has taken, and I blame it on on Amary. He's probably less qualified to be the lead developer of "the real bitcoin" than the core developers at this point, which is a shame. At least the core developers seem to see the point of keeping the base protocol stable while development happens outside the protocol. My major problem with BSV is that they are making it into a application platform. In my opinion, Bitcoin was supposed to be a money system.

Anyways, I think the only way bitcoin can be seen as a success is for it to become "historical". An example of something that's "historical" is Stonehenge. It was built thousands of years ago, and the original creators are long gone. For this reason, no one can change Stone Henge. Even though some people have the legal authority to change it, no one has the moral authority to change it. If the owners of the land that Stonehenge sits on decides to "improve" it, they have the legal right to do so, but many people will regard those changes as vandalism. There is an innate human desire to preserve things of the past. Its my opinion that the 21M limit will only be truly safe when Bitcoin is truly thought of as something of the past. As long as idiots like Amary keep making new releases on a regular bases, the project will never be historical and is in danger of having it's 21M limit raised. If the creators of Stonehenge were still around, and they wanted to change their monument, no one would want to stop them. Since people consider Amary/Core/Fake Satoshi as the creators of their respective protocols, they have free reign to change whatever they want.

Anyways, I've decided that Bitcoin is gone, and it died the moment Satoshi sayd "it's in good hands" in regards to Gavin taking the lead developer role back in 2010 or whenever it was. This set the precedent that authority to change the protocol lays with a person, and that will be Bitcoin's undoing. Instead of getting mad about it, I have been working on a new cryptocurrency protocol that I'm 90% done writing the code for. It'll probably be released by the end of the month. It's not a fork of bitcoin or anything, its a completely new codebase that doesn't use POW or POS, but instead a entirely new consensus mechanism, as well as a bunch of new concepts that have never been seen before in the crypto industry. The most important feature of this new cryptocurrency is that I'm building it completely by myself as a team of one, and I will never ever ever ever give commit access to anyone else. When I die, development ends and the protocol becomes historical and no one will ever ever ever ever be able to change it, making it ideal for a world reserve currency.

 

[KoKansei]

@priestc
Why not fork one of the bitcoin ledgers so you can bootstrap your new currency with the existing bitcoin ledger network effect? The (biggest?) problem with any new coin is distribution, so I'm curious why you think you could get a better distribution rewinding 10 years and starting back at square one.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R


https://medium.com/@Mikhail.Nikulin/lightning-network-why-it-wont-work-64d1762beee4

 

[Norway]

Looking forward to the interview with @Peter R. I hope they don't edit it to death.

EDIT: Some more gunpowder for Peter:
https://www.yours.org/content/how-lightning-network-introduce-credit-risk-30bfd41482b4

[doublepost=1552421459][/doublepost]Some people suggested that Peter Todd should step in for Peter R as a LN critic. What a joke. The leaked emails between Peter Todd and the spook John Dillon is very disturbing. Some of the content seems to be relevant even today. Like the six month fork schedule he suggested:

 

[lunar]

My major problem with BSV is that they are making it into a application platform. In my opinion, Bitcoin was supposed to be a money system.

I find this an odd line of reasoning. Simply because, if we accept Bitcoin was designed from the beginning to be Unlimited, or at least unbounded. Meaning, limits on blocksize, script size, Tx chaining and other magic numbers, that were added as training wheels, were meant to be lifted, or at least left open for the miners (In data centres) to increase with demand. Doesn't it stand to reason that Bitcoin as an application platform was inevitable from the start, only no one really noticed, it until recently?

Obviously money is the primary function, but it gets its value from utility. What could give digital money more utility than becoming the universal value system for every packet of data that is sent over the internet.

Amusing Stonehenge analogy, especially as the BSV goals are precisely that; deprecate all of Cores Rube Goldberg additions, and revert the protocol to a bug free, stable, unbounded V.0.1 -
then "set it, in stone".

ps nice to see some old faces coming out of the woodwork, welcome back.

 

[lunar]

Wow, Tim Draper speaking at the next Coingeek

https://coingeek.com/conferences/toronto-conference/

Is he thinking about selling his BTC?

 

[Norway]

Anyways, I think the only way bitcoin can be seen as a success is for it to become "historical". An example of something that's "historical" is Stonehenge. It was built thousands of years ago, and the original creators are long gone. For this reason, no one can change Stone Henge.

Nice metaphor. This is exactly the roadmap of Bitcoin SV.

 

[KoKansei]

Knowing Draper he's probably not selling it all, but re-balancing? You better fuckin' believe it.

 

[priestc]

@priestc
Why not fork one of the bitcoin ledgers

Because I think airdrops are stupid. If my project is to be successful, I want the early adopters to benefit from that, not another community that it just going to claim their airdrop, dump immediately, then never come back again. Most currencies have not launched with airdrops, so I don't think it's necessary at all.

Meaning, limits on blocksize, script size, Tx chaining and other magic numbers, that were added as training wheels, were meant to be lifted, or at least left open for the miners (In data centres) to increase with demand.

I think it was satoshi's mistake to include a scripting language with bitcoin in the first place. BSV is making this mistake worse by lifting the limits on script size.

The problem with bitcoin as an application platform is that application platforms can't just exist as is, they have to constantly be updated to stay relevant. That means a constant stream of new releases to add new opcodes, raise limits and other stuff. If I had to store a lot of money, I wouldn't want to store it on a network that is constantly being updated with "improvements". I want to store it somewhere that hasn't been updated in a long time, and will likely never be updated again ever.

Nice metaphor. This is exactly the roadmap of Bitcoin SV.

I'd me more inclined to pay attention to BSV is Craig Wright were not involved with it. If the developers ever decided to perform a coup against CSW, that would be awesome. Never before in the cryptocurrency industry has a coup been successfully achieved. It's been tried many times, but has never been successful. The big ugly truth no one wants to admit is that the person who controls the reference implementation repository, controls the ticker, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it. Of all the coups that could ever happen, one against CSW seems to be most likely. Even CSW supports don't like CSW.

 

[cypherdoc]

listen to Jimmy nguyen @55:00 reveal that his decision to forfeit a great career in IP law was made without even meeting CSW and was independent of whether or not he is Satoshi. he's a true believer in BSV and here to focus on the mission, not the man. way to go Jimmy:

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I think it was satoshi's mistake to include a scripting language with bitcoin in the first place.

I was thinking that for a while now. In hindsight, Bitcoin just as money would have probably made everything much easier.

If you look around, most stuff that is built around Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies relies on a central authority (often hidden behind some layers of "decentralization" etc.) in the end. We could have had that much easier with decentralized, capped, hard money without any fancy scripting.

its a completely new codebase that doesn't use POW or POS, but instead a entirely new consensus mechanism,

That part makes me very skeptical but we'll see..

 

[cypherdoc]

Because I think airdrops are stupid. If my project is to be successful, I want the early adopters to benefit from that, not another community that it just going to claim their airdrop, dump immediately, then never come back again. Most currencies have not launched with airdrops, so I don't

welcome to the newest altcoin.

 

[cypherdoc]

investing in Bitcoin, and likewise BSV, is like threading a needle, just like the concepts in this article. certain ideas violate some of our past assumptions regarding the necessary requirements of a cryptocurrency for success, others appeal to our common sense. IOW, it ain't easy:

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/schnorr-21be14ac05f5

 

[lunar]

The problem with bitcoin as an application platform is that application platforms can't just exist as is, they have to constantly be updated to stay relevant. That means a constant stream of new releases to add new opcodes, raise limits and other stuff. If I had to store a lot of money, I wouldn't want to store it on a network that is constantly being updated with "improvements".

relevant SN quote "The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. [...] The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we’ll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later."

Clemens Lee was the first to independently prove this, but others have agreed since. Bitcoin is Turing complete, as it is. Once the other original, disabled, opcodes have fully been restored (pers comm) the scripting language will be better understood.

The result is that any computation is/will be possible. All this on a stable protocol, where there will be no need to keep adding new opcodes or changing anything. It won't be perfect, yet it will be good enough for anything imaginable, and more importantly fixed and stable, as money should be.