Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The coward demands courage from u/BitsenBytes
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5ahq6/bch_lead_developer_amaury_séchet_leaves_bitcoin/ejcru34?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5ahq6/bch_lead_developer_amaury_séchet_leaves_bitcoin/ejcru34?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Most critics of the lawsuit frame it as an attack on open source development. But the lawsuit is afaict about manipulation and collusion with exchanges with a secret code patch, and not letting proof of work decide.
Open source developers have the same responsibility as any other person. They should not be above the law.
The secret patch was not what you would call "open source".
Open source developers have the same responsibility as any other person. They should not be above the law.
The secret patch was not what you would call "open source".
Last edited:
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
The argument that p2p cash only needs transaction data flies in the face of an excessive 220 byte OP_Return limit and ignores entirely the purpose of OP_Pushdata.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
According to /u/BitsenBytes, the development of BSV by BU has stopped.
Can you confirm this @solex ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5ahq6/bch_lead_developer_amaury_séchet_leaves_bitcoin/ejce6mg/
EDIT:
If this is true, BU has stopped developing bitcoin from my point of view. I hope it will get back on track.
Can you confirm this @solex ?
Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5ahq6/bch_lead_developer_amaury_séchet_leaves_bitcoin/ejce6mg/
EDIT:
If this is true, BU has stopped developing bitcoin from my point of view. I hope it will get back on track.
Last edited:
The main issue motivating the formation of Bitcoin Unlimited was the small-blockism of Core. The rallying cry was unlimited blocksize. That original issue is finally resolved, because there is now a version of the Bitcoin ledger whose miners seem hellbent on increasing the available blockspace way beyond the amount currently being used, and at least beyond what most BU members think is sufficient (many even think it is too much). I happen to think this is the correct path, but whatever your view it suffices to note that there is no longer that issue of the blocksize being held down.
The other raison d'etre of Bitcoin Unlimited was to have an implementation to compete with Core. While the first issue is no longer relevant, the second issue of having competition among implementations arguably remains. SV and BCH both lack competition in their node client implementations.
The hazards of a monolithic node client implementation are familiar from the experience with Core:
1) at this still-young stage, miners can easily end up being railroaded into protocol policies they don't agree with, simply out of fear of bugs if they were to suddenly try to figure out the one monolithic node client's codebase so as to safely mod it themselves
2) any bugs affect everyone (in fact two competing clients exacerbate the problem due to incompatibility, but each additional client mitigates it as any bugs in a given client are likely to hit only a minority of miners)
3) optimization is not incentivized
It seems to me that BU could remain relevant for BCH node development on all three points (in theory at least), and for BSV node development on points (2) and (3).
SV miners appear committed to restoring the protocol to its original functionality, sunsetting P2SH and a few other Core "innovations" before locking it down completely. This removes the very position "protocol dev" from the BSV landscape. No innovation in the base protocol. This is intentional. Once the restoration is complete, the clear Schelling point of setting the original protocol functionality in stone removes all the bickering and the ability of devs to railroad miners as Core has so successfully done for the past 5 years. BU actually remains relevant for point (1) in BSV only until the protocol is fully locked down.
For point (2), BU could provide redundant failsafe variation, and regarding (3) it could keep nChain on its toes as far as client scaling, at least until miners mature enough to all have their own client dev teams.
In the original Bitcoin paradigm with the protocol being immutable, which SV miners subscribe to, there are no protocol developers. Instead there are client devs, and devs building on top of the protocol like _unwriter*, along with wallet devs, etc. Client devs will just optimize performance. Eventually client developers will probably all work for miners, especially as miners are weaned off the block reward and increasingly rely on transaction fees. This maturation process brings the end of volunteer development and maybe even the end of unaffiliated node development groups like BU. Or maybe not. It depends, but one thing is certain: the future of Bitcoin is in professionalization.
Thanks to the impending halvings, miners will start competing fiercely on their node performance and connectivity in all scenarios where Bitcoin survives the coming decade. Not Core vs. BU fierce, more like Apple vs. Samsung vs. Google vs. Amazon fierce. Lawyers, industry groups, closed source, open source, patents, ISPs, archivers - a whole new industry will sprout up and old ones will be disrupted. Governments will have their say for the time being, as they get hooked on the blessings of a Bitcoin-powered Internet just like they did the original Internet.
Thus the surviving organizations will be those capable of taking all this into account. Even those building on top of the protocol will usually need to have their works informed with some understanding of the law surrounding money and communications, as well as of course economics and business.
*At the risk of stating the obvious, there's no reason developers who want to help Bitcoin succeed have to be working on node clients. They could be building things on top. It seems a lot more up the alley of devs who want to innovate. The blocksize cap and the power this gave Core created an anomalous situation where protocol development and node development were of supreme importance. We needed devs to step up; their service in creating competition for Core deserves our eternal gratitude. As a locked protocol, however, Bitcoin needs builders. Those who build things using Bitcoin. Could BU and its considerable funds be put toward innovations on top of the protocol, voted on by members?
The other raison d'etre of Bitcoin Unlimited was to have an implementation to compete with Core. While the first issue is no longer relevant, the second issue of having competition among implementations arguably remains. SV and BCH both lack competition in their node client implementations.
The hazards of a monolithic node client implementation are familiar from the experience with Core:
1) at this still-young stage, miners can easily end up being railroaded into protocol policies they don't agree with, simply out of fear of bugs if they were to suddenly try to figure out the one monolithic node client's codebase so as to safely mod it themselves
2) any bugs affect everyone (in fact two competing clients exacerbate the problem due to incompatibility, but each additional client mitigates it as any bugs in a given client are likely to hit only a minority of miners)
3) optimization is not incentivized
It seems to me that BU could remain relevant for BCH node development on all three points (in theory at least), and for BSV node development on points (2) and (3).
SV miners appear committed to restoring the protocol to its original functionality, sunsetting P2SH and a few other Core "innovations" before locking it down completely. This removes the very position "protocol dev" from the BSV landscape. No innovation in the base protocol. This is intentional. Once the restoration is complete, the clear Schelling point of setting the original protocol functionality in stone removes all the bickering and the ability of devs to railroad miners as Core has so successfully done for the past 5 years. BU actually remains relevant for point (1) in BSV only until the protocol is fully locked down.
For point (2), BU could provide redundant failsafe variation, and regarding (3) it could keep nChain on its toes as far as client scaling, at least until miners mature enough to all have their own client dev teams.
In the original Bitcoin paradigm with the protocol being immutable, which SV miners subscribe to, there are no protocol developers. Instead there are client devs, and devs building on top of the protocol like _unwriter*, along with wallet devs, etc. Client devs will just optimize performance. Eventually client developers will probably all work for miners, especially as miners are weaned off the block reward and increasingly rely on transaction fees. This maturation process brings the end of volunteer development and maybe even the end of unaffiliated node development groups like BU. Or maybe not. It depends, but one thing is certain: the future of Bitcoin is in professionalization.
Thanks to the impending halvings, miners will start competing fiercely on their node performance and connectivity in all scenarios where Bitcoin survives the coming decade. Not Core vs. BU fierce, more like Apple vs. Samsung vs. Google vs. Amazon fierce. Lawyers, industry groups, closed source, open source, patents, ISPs, archivers - a whole new industry will sprout up and old ones will be disrupted. Governments will have their say for the time being, as they get hooked on the blessings of a Bitcoin-powered Internet just like they did the original Internet.
Thus the surviving organizations will be those capable of taking all this into account. Even those building on top of the protocol will usually need to have their works informed with some understanding of the law surrounding money and communications, as well as of course economics and business.
*At the risk of stating the obvious, there's no reason developers who want to help Bitcoin succeed have to be working on node clients. They could be building things on top. It seems a lot more up the alley of devs who want to innovate. The blocksize cap and the power this gave Core created an anomalous situation where protocol development and node development were of supreme importance. We needed devs to step up; their service in creating competition for Core deserves our eternal gratitude. As a locked protocol, however, Bitcoin needs builders. Those who build things using Bitcoin. Could BU and its considerable funds be put toward innovations on top of the protocol, voted on by members?
Last edited:
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
ZB good to know you are around. your input and @AdrianX 's, among others, has been sorely missed of late.
you make good points, but unfortunately, as we've repeatedly learned, reality has a way of being messier than expected.
"sunsetting" P2SH will be a gigantic hack. will non-reference implementation BSV devs be up to that task? only, i presume, if they are getting paid. and for that, market conditions will have to be enormously different from what they are now.
you make good points, but unfortunately, as we've repeatedly learned, reality has a way of being messier than expected.
"sunsetting" P2SH will be a gigantic hack. will non-reference implementation BSV devs be up to that task? only, i presume, if they are getting paid. and for that, market conditions will have to be enormously different from what they are now.
p2sh
shouldn't there be a simple way to only allow existing p2sh addresses with balances to send "to" legacy addresses while preventing all addresses from sending to new and old p2sh addresses?
shouldn't there be a simple way to only allow existing p2sh addresses with balances to send "to" legacy addresses while preventing all addresses from sending to new and old p2sh addresses?
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Here is a very interesting point regarding time stamps, relativity and CTOR. Miners can be seen as different inertial frames of reference, but the tx order will always be chronological in each system.
This should be interesting to @Peter R and the rest of you that like physics.
There are several tweets, but this one sums it up best for those of you who don't click the link:
This should be interesting to @Peter R and the rest of you that like physics.
There are several tweets, but this one sums it up best for those of you who don't click the link:
Last edited:
here's another interesting post from an OG (can't believe he's this young?) not directly related to 0 conf but showing, from a true researcher, just how difficult if not impossible it is to execute the "miner assisted double spend". as i've always thought, and am thankful to confirm, miners hide their IP's:
The interesting thing I discovered about this was that it's harder to have stolen that segwit money than most people think. Both Unlimited and ABC nodes do not relay segwit-spending transactions, and Bitcoin ABC hard-coded in fRequireStandard, so you couldn't even force-relay them with a conf option. On top of that, miners keep their node IPs private for obvious avoiding-ddos-and-sybil-attack reasons, which means it's impossible to directly send transactions to miners. This means that the only way to actually execute this attack was to setup one's own mining pool running on a custom-modified client to allow non-standard transactions. Then you'd have to get enough hash power to mine a block yourself. I estimated the cost of renting enough hash power to do this at the time as around $30k-$60k to have a greater than 90% chance of mining a block within a 3 month window.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5p7d3/i_found_a_600k_bch_theft_that_has_gone_unnoticed/
The interesting thing I discovered about this was that it's harder to have stolen that segwit money than most people think. Both Unlimited and ABC nodes do not relay segwit-spending transactions, and Bitcoin ABC hard-coded in fRequireStandard, so you couldn't even force-relay them with a conf option. On top of that, miners keep their node IPs private for obvious avoiding-ddos-and-sybil-attack reasons, which means it's impossible to directly send transactions to miners. This means that the only way to actually execute this attack was to setup one's own mining pool running on a custom-modified client to allow non-standard transactions. Then you'd have to get enough hash power to mine a block yourself. I estimated the cost of renting enough hash power to do this at the time as around $30k-$60k to have a greater than 90% chance of mining a block within a 3 month window.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b5p7d3/i_found_a_600k_bch_theft_that_has_gone_unnoticed/
i rarely read or post here. but i can understand why anyone dislike this. its just full of bunch of people hating on BCH and minimizing the efforts done by ABC to make BCH a reality. dominated by people like @Norway et al that all they do is antagonize people and shill their coin. @cypherdoc heres some shocking facts for you. but shit posting in reddit doesn't compare to the pressure, risk, and work that it takes to release a client miners will be run.
its telling that you and other sv shitposters think they deserve the same attention and voice as developers and engineers just because you shill your coin.
its telling that you and other sv shitposters think they deserve the same attention and voice as developers and engineers just because you shill your coin.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Has it though?
I've seen this sentiment now in several places. But never any math to build an iron-clad case for it.
Recently I watched the Patterson in Pursuit podcast where he interviewed Christopher Langan, who seems to be a smart guy
Langan came up with the Cognitive Theoretical Model of the Universe (CTMU) which is all about the universe getting to know itself.
I wonder, does BU need to get to know itself too? and does it need a BUIP to discover more about itself?
For example, what is the market that BU is trying to serve, and where is it currently with respect to that?
Also, I am myself interested in the question that @Norway posed about continued support of BSV.
so pointing to your preconsensus proposal is a personal attack now? is that how low you think of yourself?
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Maybe it's time to have a members only conference?Has it though?
I've seen this sentiment now in several places. But never any math to build an iron-clad case for it.
Recently I watched the Patterson in Pursuit podcast where he interviewed Christopher Langan, who seems to be a smart guy
Langan came up with the Cognitive Theoretical Model of the Universe (CTMU) which is all about the universe getting to know itself.
I wonder, does BU need to get to know itself too? and does it need a BUIP to discover more about itself?
For example, what is the market that BU is trying to serve, and where is it currently with respect to that?
Also, I am myself interested in the question that @Norway posed about continued support of BSV.
it shows as you really have no idea of the content here. why don't you actually try keeping your mouth shut until you do?
who's shit posting reddit? links?
we've already decided here along time ago that Bitcoin should not be left in the hands of economically ignorant devs and engineers. go to core if you believe so.
>shill your coin
how many factual errors do you plan to make in your continuous accusations? everyone here but you knows I hold equal amounts of BSV vs BCH.
[doublepost=1553648242,1553647567][/doublepost]
what is wrong with these mouth breathers? how are BU officers collaborating with bsv? @solex @theZerg @Peter R; you really have no future with BCH. c'mon:
hey BU, your buddy @deadalnix who was just poking around in here posted this a coupla hours ago. how much are you willing to take? nutcases:
[doublepost=1553653400,1553652449][/doublepost]what nutcases. i'll be honest, i still don't even know what r/btc/ABC is all upset about with BU.
[doublepost=1553653493][/doublepost]oh noes! the hostile BU devs! does anyone bother with the facts? lol:
[doublepost=1553653866][/doublepost]note how @freetrader is all over r/btc posting these days. yet never does he bother to correct all the blatant lies and misperceptions from his fellow ABC supporters right in the same thread he's posting in. looks to me like he cares not for the burn/chaos/lynching going on. i've learned my lesson, i'm not going to defend BU members/devs anymore in that hostile territory:
[doublepost=1553653400,1553652449][/doublepost]what nutcases. i'll be honest, i still don't even know what r/btc/ABC is all upset about with BU.
[doublepost=1553653493][/doublepost]oh noes! the hostile BU devs! does anyone bother with the facts? lol:
[doublepost=1553653866][/doublepost]note how @freetrader is all over r/btc posting these days. yet never does he bother to correct all the blatant lies and misperceptions from his fellow ABC supporters right in the same thread he's posting in. looks to me like he cares not for the burn/chaos/lynching going on. i've learned my lesson, i'm not going to defend BU members/devs anymore in that hostile territory:
Last edited:
you admitted you were "battling" in reddit. okay.
Unlike you, at least they are devs and engineers, you are just economically ignorant
Latest threads
-
-
From Loss to Triumph: The Unmatched Expertise of CoinCaper Recovery
- sandramcghee415
- 0 replies
-
-
Members online
No members online now.