Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

what a douchebag. ABC and it's shitlord has lost their minds:

“It’s a mixed bag. A lot of Wright stooges, and a leadership which has the commitment of a wet noodle,” he says.


“Useful fools are a problem,” Sechet says, with some suggesting BU is in the process of being taken over by BSV supporters who can effectively game BU’s “democracy” where members vote for Bitcoin Unlimited Improvement Proposals (BUIPs).


That gained support and quite quickly, but when Gavin Andresen or Jeff Garzik tried to get involved in the coding, BU’s lead dev, Andrew Stones, responded undiplomatically.

https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/03/25/amaury-sechet-it-is-not-that-i-want-to-get-rid-of-bu-they-did-it-to-themselves
[doublepost=1553654553][/doublepost]@sken "Unlike you, at least they are devs and engineers, you are just economically ignorant

and we can reduce you to just plain ignorant.
[doublepost=1553654769][/doublepost]looks like we've got the twitter trolls like @sken stirring up trouble. poor BU leadership, you're in for a bashing:

 

[cypherdoc]

you admitted you were "battling" in reddit. okay.

1. so now battling is equivalent to shitposting? i was vigorously defending BU from Silverblood's and ftrader's trash talk. that's not shitposting.

2. you label me a coin shill when you fail to realize i'm 50:50

3. you label me a BU troll when i'm not even a member.

4. you label this thread a shitfest when it's somehow managed to survive 8 years with literally millions of views and hundreds of thousands of replies and probably the longest active thread in Bitcoin's history (incl BCT).

5. you admit you haven't read this thread nor it's contents but you claim i'm economically ignorant and it's contents are useless.

any other bullshit you care to sling, you ignoramus?

 

[freetrader]

If you haven't noticed @cypherdoc, you've been turning this thread into a shitfest for a while.
I suspect it's that Satoshi Virus going around.

p.s. I am vigorously defending BU from most any trashtalkers. When I don't comment on something it's because I'm not in a position to judge (e.g. who first shmoozed with Calvin/Craig or did this or that) or I don't think it's worth stirring up (aka making mountains out of molehills). Or sometimes I miss things.

 

[rocks]

To be fair to ABC, the arguments against CTOR make no sense. Satoshi's paper defines an inter-block ordering of transactions, not an intra-block ordering. Within a block transactions can come in any order as long as the entire block of transactions as a whole are valid.

The only reason the v0.1 client (not protocol) used TTOR ordering is because it is the easiest to program. CTOR takes a bit more work, but results in much more efficient block propagation at the cost of more complex block validation code.

BSV BTW will eventually need to change block ordering as well to more efficiently manage storage. It will make sense at some point for OP_RETURN transactions for a given application to be grouped together within the Merkle tree. By doing that it is easy and efficient to prune data by application by pruning branches of the Merle tree. Applications only interested in a specific group of data would only need to store a small portion of the Merkle tree and could prune whole other groups out. None of that changes the protocol though.

Edit: None of that changes how it was done, such a change forces significant rework in other clients which isn't possible without significant warning ahead of time, such a change should be telegraphed a year or so in advance.

 

[cypherdoc]

If you haven't noticed @cypherdoc, you've been turning this thread into a shitfest for a while.

no, only when it comes to you and your new twitter trolls.

p.s. I am vigorously defending BU from most any trashtalkers.

please don't make me laugh. everyone here feel free to comb through the comments in the following thread to see who's actually vigorously defending BU despite not being a member compared to who u/ftrader aka @freetrader decides to respond to. me, of all people. just another white lie of @freetrader where he hopes you won't check:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b3pkv0/should_members_of_bitcoin_unlimited_be_expelled

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Ideas like these represent big moneymaking opportunities for developers building on the protocol. Some of this could even be built on BCH, though of course watch out for protocol changes that might mess up your creations.

 

[kostialevin]

Satoshi's paper defines an inter-block ordering of transactions, not an intra-block ordering.

The WP states:

"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. "

The fact that is intra-block or inter-block it's an interpretation.

 

[bitsko]

Where else have we seen 'bitcoiners' petitioning groups to disassociate with other bitcoiners...

This drive to purge BSV big blockers by non BU members reminds me of a core community tactic.

Unfortunate they cannot approach the arguments and choose to whine from their safe spaces.

It's bullish for BSV as it reeks of desperation from the opposition.
[doublepost=1553680828,1553679673][/doublepost]*looks like nullc was even giving advice to the downtrodden bch members on reddit haha

 

[Zarathustra]

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:

He begins to behave like CSW; attacks most of his former allies. However with no more than 10 percent of CSW's charisma, he can only be a bonsai CSW with bonsai blocks. A leader of a bonsai community, or not even that, since it's still Roger who is leading the BCH community (into a cul de sac). Thus spake Zarathustra ...

 

[Griffith]

The next round of voting will sort out all the issues. BUIPs 113, 114, 115, and 116 will leave everyone doubt free on where BU stands

 

[cypherdoc]

you know what? it just occurred to me. who really would you expect to be the one leading a purge against certain BU members (from this thread)? someone like me!

GCBU is technically "my thread", this is where I mainly post, I never bothered to renew my membership (out of non participation during the years I was gone), and I got a bunch of ABC supporting BU members surrounding and hassling me day in day out. yet, who are the ones whining, disenrolling, and running and hiding?

this is one of those upside down backwards nut jobs that leaves me flabbergasted.

 

[freetrader]

Good work @Griffith on the approach taken.
I can't think of a better way to evaluate where BU stands and where it wants to go.

EDIT: The above comment applied to the BUIPs as initially submitted. Major changes have since been requested by officials, which in the case of 116 completely transform the BUIP. The outcome so far is unclear, which is why the above should not be taken as my approval of the final BUIPs 113,114,115,116.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Griffith

I haven't seen the BUIP's, but I assume it's some sort of voting referendum to expel BSV supporting BU members if they don't pledge fealty to a certain "moral" concept that ABC espouses? something like "if thou will not speak out against said lawsuit against @deadalnix & co, thou shalt not speak at all". or worse, "thou shalt be expelled"?

And here we see @freetrader supporting such a referendum. who's the one being divisive? yet again? this time with a sledge hammer?

you know what? I get it now. I'm sure the lawsuit is exactly what is causing @deadalnix & co to come apart at the seams. and here we thought certain BU members and ABC supporters were for free ~~trade~~ speech...

 

[Griffith]

you know what? it just occurred to me. who really would you expect to be the one leading the purge against BU? me!

GCBU is technically "my thread", this is where I mainly post, I never bothered to renew my membership (out of non participation during the years I was gone), and I got a bunch of ABC supporting BU members surrounding and hassling me day in day out. yet, who are the ones whining, disenrolling, and running and hiding?

this is one of those upside down backwards nut jobs that leaves me flabbergasted.

How would you "lead the purge"? you cant create BUIPs because you arent a member.
[doublepost=1553687640][/doublepost]

@Griffith

I haven't seen the BUIP's, but I assume it's some sort of voting referendum to expel BSV supporting BU members if they don't pledge fealty to a certain "moral" concept that ABC espouses? something like "if thou will not speak out against said lawsuit against @deadalnix & co, thou shalt not speak at all".

And here we see @freetrader supporting such a referendum. who's the one being divisive?

you know what? I get it now. I'm sure the lawsuit is exactly what is causing @deadalnix & co to come apart at the seams.

No. all of the BUIPs are impartial. there is an equal option for all. and deadalnix doesnt get a vote anymore. he resigned his membership.

 

[cypherdoc]

>How would you "lead the purge"?

by trying to ban/silence everyone who disagrees with me from this thread.

don't worry, I don't have such insecurities or want that; before you or @freetrader tries to twist it into something I'd really want to do.

 

[freetrader]

How would you "lead the purge"? you cant create BUIPs because you arent a member.

A non-member may create a BUIP that is sponsored by a member.

I suggest that is exactly what @cypherdoc should do if he is dissatisfied with the BUIPs you proposed.
He doesn't get to vote of course, but that's his own fault as he didn't participate and didn't bother renewing his membership.

 

[Norway]

Looks like @Griffith wants to change the definition of a rejection of his proposals in BUIP113, BUIP114 and BUIP115.

If you vote YES, you have to give me all your money.
If you vote NO, you have to divorce your wife.

 

[freetrader]

I don't get your point @Norway. For those BUIPs,

If you vote YES, then it means you want support for that chain to be continued.
If you vote NO, then it means you want support for that chain to be discontinued.

EDIT: the BUIPs have since been revised (at theZerg's request) to invert the meaning. The above comment is therefore out of date.

 

[Griffith]

they are worded in this way intentionally to force a decision. it is highly unlikely that all 3 would fail anyway
[doublepost=1553690080][/doublepost]@freetrader he is complaining that usually a NO in a buip means to not change anything but in this case it is the opposite. to have everything remain the same for these buips all 3 would need to pass

 

[Norway]

We can't have proposals that removes the option of rejecting the proposal.
[doublepost=1553690345][/doublepost]These games might work on a 5y old, but c'mon. We are grown ups here.