Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
@cypherdoc the reason my actions are inscrutable to you is because you don't understand my priorities.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@theZerg

i'm sure i do. they go somewhere along the lines of "secure optimization" that doesn't cause nodes to crash or centralize, etc. i also see that you want to build an entire internal economy that would hard fork in things like ticket sales and oracle referenced betting (via DSV) directly into the protocol layer via GROUP. i also see you wanting to give users choice via complexities like EB, AD, etc (can't even remember all the acronyms now).

but here's an easy offer that will sway me to your side. take the challenge and break or kill BSV. that would be one less coin i'd have to worry about; which fits my maximalist side:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
take the challenge and break or kill BSV
Whenever I see such invitations, I think that anyone who uses the BSV network (even to assist them in their suicide quest) should get indemnity papers signed first.

May I suggest also that if someone participates in their network, that they do so anonymously to avoid lawsuits of the kind that SV supporters have already launched against BU members.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@freetrader
I don't think people will follow your advice.

Regarding the lawsuit: I don't know if it's illegal to collude with exchanges to steal tickers and prevent hashpower from being effective. But it sure stinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lunar and bitsko

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Whenever I see such invitations, I think that anyone who uses the BSV network (even to assist them in their suicide quest) should get indemnity papers signed first.

May I suggest also that if someone participates in their network, that they do so anonymously to avoid lawsuits of the kind that SV supporters have already launched against BU members.
do you really live this far off the grid?
[doublepost=1553271335][/doublepost]the treachery continues apace:

This is a long-term plan for the Core camp. I have had some conversations with Core developers, and they want to change the 21M limit after BTC experiences two reward halvings, which means in five to ten years.

https://coinspice.io/news/bitcoin-mining-pool-btc-top-founder-jiang-zhuoer-bch-craig-wright-and-crypto/
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@Bagatell
I have seen you wanting me to quit BU several times now, because of the statement I made here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1346#post-86593

I hope someone makes post- and preconsensus for BCH. Because this can make the BCH chain fragment further.

I want BCH to split as soon as possible and into as many small parts as possible. Because I want world money, and BSV has the roadmap (don't change the protocol) to reach this goal.

@Mengerian wants to protect a minority chain (measured in hashpower/value) with post-consensus. It's a losing strategy with zero ambition.

Hashpower is the friend and protector of BSV, not the enemy.
[doublepost=1545516321,1545515598][/doublepost]Post- and preconsensus gives four possible combinations (no change, post, pre, both) and four potential chains.

Combine this with new OP-codes, new rolling checkpoint systems, altered blocktimes and other protocol "inventions" to fix something that works, and we will have dividend galore, according to investor @deadalnix.

It's foolish to think that developers and other in the ecosystem can come to agreements for a single direction for BCH.
I would prefer that you argued for your multicoin view instead of asking me to leave BU. You're a nice guy and we have shared beer.

My view is that we should get one dominant bitcoin as soon as possible to create global money. Part of that journey is that the other competing chains lose their monetary value.

Please state your own view.

EDIT: Here, you even want me expelled from BU, based on a lie:

 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
i noticed @deadalnix popped in here yesterday. then we get that ridiculous proposal to split BU membership you've got quoted. coincidence?
[doublepost=1553275530][/doublepost]what i really think @Bagatell wants to do is shutdown this thread. good luck. lol, i couldn't even do that.
[doublepost=1553276307,1553275232][/doublepost]wat the f* is this?:

 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@freetrader
Regarding the lawsuit: I don't know if it's illegal to collude with exchanges to steal tickers and prevent hashpower from being effective. But it sure stinks.
"steal tickers" - which ticker did Bitcoin Cash have before the upgrade and which one does it have now?

"prevent hashpower from being effective" - as mentioned countless times, doing a deep re-org to double-spend exchanges isn't hashpower being effective, it's hashpower being malicious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh brother. will the spam please stop?

the answer continues to be, buy yourself out of the threats with more hash; I actually don't have a problem with their cross chain recruitment of that. it remains the checkpoints and finalization scheme that's destroyed PoW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
There really isn't a much more concise explanation than by u/tophernator:


but if you really need a longer explanation


p.s. yeah, regrettably I can't do anything about the spam in this thread. Gotta wait for Bloomie to clean that up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
"steal tickers" - which ticker did Bitcoin Cash have before the upgrade and which one does it have now?
The ticker stolen by dirty collusion with exhanges and secret patches was the BCH ticker. That should be obvious. BU didn't even know. Not even @Peter R knew, because he would have informed BU about it.

"prevent hashpower from being effective" - as mentioned countless times, doing a deep re-org to double-spend exchanges isn't hashpower being effective, it's hashpower being malicious.
You're just assigning emotional value ("malicious") to miners' action to defend bitcoin. This is just silly.
[doublepost=1553281654][/doublepost]Breaking news!
This is not a stress test!
BSV pass BTC in organic use of blockspace!

 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
There really isn't a much more concise explanation than by u/tophernator:


but if you really need a longer explanation


p.s. yeah, regrettably I can't do anything about the spam in this thread. Gotta wait for Bloomie to clean that up.
yep, there you go again. depending on hearsay and making panicky moves. no wonder the space is a mess with you and those two blathering fud all over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
there is too much acrimony in this thread. it is not necessary.

there are three versions of bitcoin. at this point BU has little real influence over the direction any one of them takes. officially and until further notice, it will continue to put out clients that work on each chain (modulo segwit).

in the long run, either (a) the whole experiment fizzles or (b) the market prefers one of the chains to the detriment of the others (which in turn implies that chain has gained significant real world traction). in that case BU's software and expertise may be in high demand, assuming it has remained competitive with the respective reference clients.

BU's BTC client is already not competitive, as a result of our collective conviction that that chain will not scale and is a dead end. will BU's BCH and BSV clients both remain in the game? some members appear to think it is a mistake or a moral or a legal hazard to continue devoting resources to BSV. others (and this includes elected officials) are not ready to make that call.

those uneasy with further association with BSV could put out a BUIP asking for that version of the client to be deprecated (rather than suggesting banning of members with whom they disagree on the matter), and see where the melee of a vote takes us. otherwise, we can just cool down and keep course, which does however mean keeping up with BSV's steady capacity increase.

as @theZerg suggested, further keyboard warrioring is not useful.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
There is a much higher 'probability' that u/zectro is identical with the truther account u/contrarian than CSW is not part of a team Satoshi.
i'd be more interested in knowing under what nick @freetrader posts with on reddit.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Poll: which of the following active developers has the highest 'probability' of being (part of the team) Satoshi?

A) Freetrader
B) Amaury Sechet
C) unwriter
D) Greg Maxwell
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Well @Zarathustra , I'm not part of the original "team Satoshi" if there ever was such a team. I also didn't make any such a claim, ever.
Neither did Amaury, nor did I see unwriter make such a claim, nor Greg Maxwell.
However, unwriter being a pseudonym, he or she could be a group of people just like Satoshi might have been. However, I think it's exceedingly unlikely that unwriter has anything to do with the original Satoshi. That's just my opinion.

And @cypherdoc, you're welcome .

On a positive note, congratulations to the developers of BCHD. Awesome job, you're an inspiration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Members online