Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

the Reset Membership buip is ridiculous/laughable. replace all visionary non coding members with a bunch of geeks? I already told you :

-coders code their biases
-the geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created
-devs gotta dev
-don't hate on BU, hate GCBU
[doublepost=1553704539][/doublepost]>demanding participan in their warmanship-rhetoric.

you bet it is :

you're either with us or you're against us

if you don't shutup and just listen, you'll be shot.

 

[lunar]

Can someone show me some real evidence that Calvin or nChain is behind the United corp lawsuit?
All i'm seeing here and reddit is completely unfounded slander and insinuation.

If anything UC looks to be completely unrelated as they regularly do these sort of class action cases going back decades.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/02/02/1332375/0/en/UnitedCorp-Seeks-Injunctive-Relief-from-Instagram-in-Federal-Court-of-Canada-for-use-of-its-iFramed-Patented-Technology.html

https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/snapchat-geofilters-legal-cease-and-desist-unitedcorp-1202581616/

I'm no fan of these of offensive type law suits. However as @Norway points out, we've no idea if anyone involved broke the law, but it sure stinks of market manipulation, so perhaps the UC case will be first of many?

How about we get some facts before slinging mud at BU and BSV, it's just divisive and very unproductive.

 

[cypherdoc]

Based on all these freestyle voting rules BUIPs (113 - 117) popping up I'm tempted to create yet another one.

you should indeed do it. if anything just to demonstrate the ludicrousy of what they're trying to do. as a nod to the geeks, the majority of whom I despise (not the BU or BSV ones), I believe BUIP's should restrict themselves to mainly technical matters; otherwise we get the kinda political bullshit ones from guys like @Griffith who was seen on r/btc plotting with @freetrader just the other day to spring these on us. it sounded so stupid, I never thought they'd go through with it but wadda ya know.

 

[freetrader]

So United American also have expertise in patent litigation.
I see...

 

[kostialevin]

The block's timestamp is the only timestamp in the system and it is tied to the real world through PoW mining, there are no other timestamps.

True. But "chronological order" is different from "timestamped". With TTOR TX are in chronological order.

 

[cypherdoc]

Based on all these freestyle voting rules BUIPs (113 - 117) popping up I'm tempted to create yet another one.

you should indeed do it. if anything just to demonstrate the ludicrousy of what they're trying to do. as a nod to the geeks, the majority of whom I despise (not the BU or BSV ones), I believe BUIP's should restrict themselves to mainly technical matters; otherwise we get the kinda political bullshit ones from guys like @Griffith who was seen on r/btc plotting with @freetrader just the other day to spring these on us. it sounded so stupid, I never thought they'd go through with it but wadda ya know.
[doublepost=1553708230][/doublepost]

So United American also have expertise in patent litigation.
I see...

so what?

stirring the pot, stirring the pot. i see...

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

If you support the chain that has been launched by manipulation and collusion with exchanges with a secret code patch, and not letting proof of work decide, you should resign from BU, shouldn't you?

 

[rocks]

you should indeed do it. if anything just to demonstrate the ludicrousy of what they're trying to do. as a nod to the geeks, the majority of whom I despise (not the BU or BSV ones), I believe BUIP's should restrict themselves to mainly technical matters; otherwise we get the kinda political bullshit ones from guys like @Griffith who was seen on r/btc plotting with @freetrader just the other day to spring these on us. it sounded so stupid, I never thought they'd go through with it but wadda ya know.

I think what we are seeing is democracy does not work and Mike Hearn was right in stating that open source projects need a friendly dictator to set direction, such as Linus for Linux.

If that is the case then CSW's very (very) clear direction of locking down the v0.1 protocol is the project i have most faith in. Let CSW manage the full node miner code and focus BU as a user client that uses the bsv block chain better.

The guy also is crazy rich and is investing resources in bsv, what resources does abc have comparatively?

 

[Zarathustra]

I think what we are seeing is democracy does not work and Mike Hearn was right in stating that open source projects need a friendly dictator to set direction, such as Linus for Linux.

@rocks

I think that is exactly how democracies work. Elected rulers mirror the will of the voters. Forks are elections. ABC is like the US and BU is like Switzerland, a more direct democracy. Hundreds of societies tried to implement a direct democracy, but only Switzerland was successful. The chance to succeed is minimal, but we should try.

 

[freetrader]

If you support the chain that has been launched by manipulation and collusion with exchanges with a secret code patch, and not letting proof of work decide, you should resign from BU, shouldn't you?

I've not seen any evidence that proof of work did not decide the outcome of the November fork.

I suppose one of you SV supporters has some evidence that the anti-deep-reorg code was ever decisive in determining the chain tip of what is now BCH?

Bring it on, I'd like to see it. So far all I'm seeing is it's being used as a poor excuse for not having had enough hashpower in the first place.

 

[Zarathustra]

"manipulation and collusion with exchanges with a secret code patch" is against PoW. It's PoM.

 

[cypherdoc]

I've not seen any evidence that proof of work did not decide the outcome of the November fork.

I suppose one of you SV supporters has some evidence that the anti-deep-reorg code was ever decisive in determining the chain tip of what is now BCH?

Bring it on, I'd like to see it. So far all I'm seeing is it's being used as a poor excuse for not having had enough hashpower in the first place.

this is exactly the excuse manipulators use all the time, "prove to me the unprovable, otherwise you're wrong". i'm already on record stating that i don't really have a problem with how Bitmain decided to bring over their hashpower to the BCH to stifle the majority BSV chain. if they did that alone and were able to replicate what has happened, fine. but the backroom plotting with exchanges to undermine PoW as the unique rule making mechanism within Bitcoin using checkpoints as an insurance was definitely wrong and undermines any claims that ABC has towards supporting Nakamoto Concensus decision making.

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
If the judge finds evidence that illegal activity happened, the criminals will be punished.

 

[freetrader]

What if the judge is bribed?

Does that exist in your model of reality, @Norway?

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
I'm 49. How old are you?

EDIT: At my age, you remember when you're born, you don't keep track of your age. Turns out I'm still 48, lol.

 

[Richy_T]

There are several tweets, but this one sums it up best for those of you who don't click the link:

The comparison to relativity is nonsense (and I know Peter will be very familiar with that example). However, an important thing to note is that logically, there is no chronological ordering within a block. A block is solved all at one time and thus every transaction within that block is confirmed simultaneously. Any chronological ordering is a happenstance of the implementation. As I have said before, I think it's quite unfortunate that any particular ordering was expected within a block because then the implementation does not correctly reflect the model it is supposed to represent.
[doublepost=1553718335][/doublepost]

impossible

I'd be careful with that word. I suspect it is merely "hard" to know their IP address. And not all that hard at that.

 

[sken]

@freetrader you arguing with a sack of potatoes. the purpose of the lawsuit is to drain these devs from their resources and to intimidate them. its just a billionaire bullying some people for not getting their way. its pretty obvious they dont intend to win, but to drag it as long as possible. Norway thinks that's ok, reflecting on his bags, and having no sense of justice at all and being a sore loser.

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader

geezuz, what fricking hole did you crawl out of? are you a total anarchist? what would you rather have, lynch mob decision making? b/c that's what you're doing with these crazy BUIP's blaming the entirety of BU on two lousy comments by @Norway & @AdrianX. @Norway's comment can't even be considered malicious except in special minds like yours. yeah, so i'm a Bitcoin Maximalist and have said dozens of times about how i want a one coin winner; as has been repeated how many thousands of times by how many thousands of Bitcoiners? are we all malicious in your mind as it implies we want all those altcoins to fail?

see folks, this is the type of non sequitur argumentation coming from @freetrader that makes me think he is malicious. bribing a judge in the US is next to impossible with the consequences devastating if caught. we can't have a civilized society w/o any rule of law with lawsuits. i'm not in favor of this lawsuit, per se, but if ABC is innocent, i'm confident they should be able to get it dismissed or win outright.
[doublepost=1553718814][/doublepost]103MB block on BSV. but but i thought it was "impossible" (there's that word again)!?

 

[Richy_T]

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/...nt-to-get-rid-of-bu-they-did-it-to-themselves

My god, there's some kind of pathology going on there.
[doublepost=1553719759][/doublepost]

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

Not really. "Timestamp", "Chronological", it's all time related. Given two independent transactions, A and B, there's no way to tell which is generated first. The only thing that's chronological is that you can say that block (n+1) occurred *after* block (n). It's not an interpretation, it's the only way it can be.

(The chronology of two dependent transactions is defined by the dependence of one on the TXID of the other).
[doublepost=1553720126,1553719296][/doublepost]

to have everything remain the same for these buips all 3 would need to pass

That doesn't sound very, uh, sound. I think you would need to pass a BUIP to enable that to be the case first.
[doublepost=1553720750][/doublepost]

yes, it's actually important for BU to provide an alternate implementation on the BSV protocol as a fallback to any shenanigans that asshole CSW might pull, if he can (im doubtful that he can).

Here's an alternative view on that. BU is not just about offering alternative implementations of protocol X, it's actually about allowing users and miners choice in advancing the protocol. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/BUarticles.pdf

However, BSV intends to lock down the protocol, set it in stone. So as far as BU is concerned, job done. There's no more to see there.

Now, obviously, future direction is decided by BUIPs and voting but I think it's important to consider original intent in these things.

(Edit: Apologies, you already upvoted this post for the first part and the forum software has collapsed all the posts into one).

 

[Norway]

The comparison to relativity is nonsense (and I know Peter will be very familiar with that example). However, an important thing to note is that logically, there is no chronological ordering within a block.

What you fail to see is that the miner IS the clock. The comparison to relativity is not nonsense.

TX A happens before TX B for one miner. TX B happens before TX A for another miner.

The reality is observed different from the perspective of the two different miners. This can be seen as inertial frames of reference.

The miner finding a block, gets to tell the global history of the chronological history.