Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

None of the quotes you referenced from the paper specify a specific ordering within a block, none.

The paper's parts on the timestamp server match my earlier post that a block is the timestamp server's unit of record and all transactions in a block share the same timestamp.

The base unit in Bitcoin's security model is a block, all transactions in the block have the same number of confirmations, share the same level of security, and share the same timestamp.

Your confusion comes from this quote.

The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

Read step 5) again:

5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

Let me ask you: Can you spend a transaction (ie: is it "valid") where the inputs do not exist yet? Remember, we cannot appeal to "outside" or "true time" because any other timestamps are faulty and not backed by PoW.

You assume 5) defines an intra-block transaction ordering, it does not. You also state "where the inputs do not exist yet". This is a fundamental misunderstanding, the inputs do exist, they exist in the same block with the same timestamp.

Assume the following sequence of transactions, A -> B -> C, where B spends A's outputs and C spends B's output.

Consider a block with the transactions in the following order: Header, transaction B, transaction C, transaction A. Now ask what timestamp these transactions have, the answer is they all have the same timestamp, meaning they happened simultaneously. Now ask if they are valid, the answer is yes because they all spend valid outputs, the outputs spent by transactions B and C are created in this block, but they share the same timestamp and thus are not out of order. A client has to search the block and verify this, but after doing so can confirm they are valid.

Note this is the exact same validation logic that happens with TTOR where transactions come in A then B then C order. Just as in the example above, the outputs spent by B and C are created in the same block which is valid because they share the same timestamp. The validation logic is the same, it's just easier for the client to search to validate.

So again, show me where in the paper an intra-block ordering is specified, because I've read that paper several times over the past several years and reviewed the code, and nothing specifies an ordering, even the quotes you gave.

BTW, one thing I am playing with now is how a BSV storage server would operate to serve up OP_RETURN data, I can assure you none of the approaches would use TTOR if they were to be cost effective...

Edit: Welcome to the thread, I always appreciate it when people take time to explain their thinking, even if I think it's misplaced.

 

[digitsu]

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.

That is exactly what SPOILT is in my opinion.
That it why I voted SPOIL on the last stupid "vote yes to move ALL our treasury to BSV" bullshit. That is dumb. On multiple levels. Because 1) it was obviously worded to be a highly contentious and rash decision so that it would likely be voted DOWN 2) Assuming the #1 happens the vote DOWN of the proposal can then be used as political leverage to say "look! see! we don't support SV and the membership supports that view, 3) even if the first 2 devious political maneuvering were NOT true, then the proposer is obviously stupid enough to think that moving ALL your money from a company treasure and putting your eggs in one basket is a SOUND investment strategy to preserve value, and finally 4) EVEN if you forgive that complete naivety, that certainly isn't something that the MEMBERSHIP should vote on. Membership should vote in a TREASURER, presumably someone qualified to make such decisions on behalf of the company. NOT punt such a decision to the membership.

The 4th point makes me highly suspect the whole proposal was just construed as a political move.

THUS I VOTED SPOILT.

This is what you should do if you reject the proposal as a valid item to vote on Norway.

 

[Richy_T]

Why don't you explain to me what the cone of causality is, and why it's relevant?

It explains why different frames of reference do not mean a different objective reality. Causality still persists even though event A can occur before or after event B for causally related events, there can only be one order for those that are causally related.

You can't go full Andreas Brekken on me and point at a book while refusing to debate. It's very easy to point at books.

It's impossible to have a discussion (not a debate since this is well explored stuff) with someone not conversant with the subject matter. The book provides access to the needed concepts without needing a deep understanding of physics and is a great primer on the topic. Someone who is trained in the field is telling you that you are not applying concepts in the correct manner and offering to help you understand why. What you do with that is up to you. You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead.

 

[Griffith]

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

BUIPs 113, 114, 115, and 116 have all been edited to reflect feedback given and/or issues with meeting buip requirements

113 114 and 115 are under review right now due a potential issue that is stated in them. they will more than likely be updated again
[doublepost=1553749710][/doublepost]

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.

plotted? interesting word choice.

I was simply the one that started to form the BUIPS. Where the BU members stand in terms of what coins they support is a question many including myself want answered. As an organization we have tried to stay neutral as long as possible in the name of our single goal being global cash through on-chain scaling and have reached the point of getting battered by both the bch and bsv communities. It was inevitable that eventually we would have to take a vote on this
[doublepost=1553750068,1553749240][/doublepost]

Yes, to be honest ... For me this smells like an attack on BU. First Mengerian, Amaury and Todo leave in a loud and salty way, demanding participan in their warmanship-rhetoric. Then we have a BUIP proposing the reset of membership.

I have adjusted that BUIP based on feedback and it now no longer kicks everyone. Instead it clarifies the process for non-officer member removal (via no-confidence BUIP) in the AOF and sets voting thresholds.

in hindsight, mass removal of everyone except officers was an overreaction.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's impossible to have a discussion (not a debate since this is well explored stuff) with someone not conversant with the subject matter. The book provides access to the needed concepts without needing a deep understanding of physics and is a great primer on the topic.

Regarding QM and 'free will' it's always the question of "which interpretation of quantum mechanics". I'm not a physicist, but I'm still 100 percent convinced that the causal/deterministic interpretation is the true interpretation. QM is (like Bitcoin) a question that can only be answered in a multidisciplinary way, and here, as a non-geek and non-physicist, I'm perfectly able to argue with physicists and geeks (not in English, but in German). Effects without cause is an oxymoron; free will is also an oxymoron. I learned that many physicists and so called experts even don't know what they mean with the term indeterminism and confuse it with unpredictability.

 

[Norway]

@digitsu Fair point regarding the "spoil" option. To not vote is another option.

 

[lunar]

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:

" 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.

mapping is already underway

http://bitsonar.mempool.com

Apparently this is in early beta, but in a small world network, where connectivity is of such importance, I don't believe it will be long, before most miners become know entities.

 

[Norway]

It's impossible to have a discussion (not a debate since this is well explored stuff) with someone not conversant with the subject matter. The book provides access to the needed concepts without needing a deep understanding of physics and is a great primer on the topic. Someone who is trained in the field is telling you that you are not applying concepts in the correct manner and offering to help you understand why. What you do with that is up to you. You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead.

You don't need to be condescending, you should prove your points with arguments. And your ninja editing of the simultaneous events to a computer suggest that you are not that trained as you claim.

There is no causality in a doublespend. The miner defines if A or B is first. The miner sets the order. The miner is the clock. Using inertial frames of reference is a tool to understand the relative reality of miners. I understand that you subscribe to a holistic reality and prefer a model where everything is globally true. But that, my friend, is a subjective view.

 

[torusJKL]

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.

That's not a correct interpretation odd the situation.

Set in stone means the protocol itself will not change.
But there is much development needed to scale and make the implementation better.

I think this is where BU always has been best.
Xthin or Graphene are for example changes that are compatible with a fixed protocol and are needed for scaling.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Woah, Amaury and his drones go full war mode on BU. It wasn't enough to push out nChain. No doubt the only form to coexist with ABC will be total submission. The level of selfimportance reached Maxwellian dimensions, coupled with a mandate to change Bitcoin and a really weird public support of r/btc and the BCH community.

Having three parties decentralizes power balance. Having only two, ends in centralization. Everybody who played a round of the table game Risk knows this very well. This was one of the reasons why I have been so heavily against a fork.

https://old.reddit.com/user/deadalnix/comments/
[doublepost=1553776417][/doublepost]The only answer Bitcoin Unlimited should have on this is:

Fuck you. We do what we want, we support the chain we want to support. Don't like us? We don't care. Want us to support your plans? Give us what we want. Demand our members not liking lawsuits or nChain? We don't give a shit. Our members are free people. If they would not have their own mind, they wouldn't be members of Bitcoin Unlimited.

 

[torusJKL]

Why did the official BU twitter account promote @Peter R medium article?


When has this anti BSV rhetoric become the official position of BU?

Last I looked the members have voted to support the features of both chains.

@solex

 

[cypherdoc]

a part of me might believe @theZerg might threaten a hash war over OP GROUP, but I've never heard him say it in this thread :

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

That's so incredible:

"OP_GROUP wasn't getting any traction, but Andrew wouldn't back down and was threatening to push it anyways and split the chain, in the way nChain did in november."

Replace OP_Group with CTOR, Andrew with Amaury ...

Andrew had the wisdom to acknowledge that even with the backing of BU membership vote his proposals have no free pass to get into the protocol.

 

[79b79aa8]

even if that were true (and it does not sound like it is), the difference is that @theZerg built an organization in which he would not have the power to make that kind of decision.

to this onlooker at least, power quickly went into séchet's head, with little (but the market) to control it. i would leave the matter alone, it will unwind by itself.

 

[Norway]

It baffles me that so many intelligent people don't see the value of locking down the protocol. Every change is a potential split. You don't need different clients for this to happen. Old ABC can split from new ABC. On top of it all, you get the drama and fight for power over the evolving protocol.

Why don't people see this? Are they corrupted by their influence in the protocol game?

 

[freetrader]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b69zip/why_we_all_could_benifit_from_relaxing_a_little/

 

[cypherdoc]

It baffles me that so many intelligent people don't see the value of locking down the protocol. Every change is a potential split. You don't need different clients for this to happen. Old ABC can split from new ABC. On top of it all, you get the drama and fight for power over the evolving protocol.

Why don't people see this? Are they corrupted by their influence in the protocol game?

[doublepost=1553780857][/doublepost]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b69zip/why_we_all_could_benifit_from_relaxing_a_little/

lol, so says the co-spearhead of the most divisive BUIP's in BU's history; total membership reset to devs only. I'd prefer an apology myself.
[doublepost=1553781239,1553780618][/doublepost]@deadalnix has lost his mind. now he's an economist. everyone should read his reddit posting diary of the last few days:

 

[attila]

None of the quotes you referenced from the paper specify a specific ordering within a block, none.

They all use the word 'chronological' which means 'causal order'.

A grasp of chronology, simple as it may seem, is a fundamental skill of any historian. By "chronology," we mean what happened, in which order. - source https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/considerations/chronology.html

"The base unit in Bitcoin's security model is a block, all transactions in the block have the same number of confirmations, share the same level of security, and share the same timestamp."

Whether or not something is labelled with the same "timestamp" does not make it reality. You and both know that child and parent tx's could NEVER have happened at the same time. The minimum increment in the universe is the Planck Time. Child tx's must have necessarily happened after the parent. Merely labelling them with the same timestamp does not make it so.

Now ask what timestamp these transactions have, the answer is they all have the same timestamp, meaning they happened simultaneously.

NO they did not. Just because you write them down and say they are "simultaneous". YOU,ME AND EVERYONE KNOWS THEY COULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED SIMULTANEOUSLY. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so. It's impossible for them to have happened at the same time and is actually meaningless. Did you read the links to General Relativity that I posted above?

Appealing to 'simultaneous' and pretending they happened at the same time because someone wrote them into computer memory in lexicographical order...is wishful thinking at best or delusional. Nothing happens simultaneously.

Even if it was "simultaneous" (which obviously is not) -- it still does not mean it's "chronological" and "causal order".

Let me ask you this: will the IRS (or whatever your tax agency is) be happy with you providing all your accounts paid/received in one big "simultaneous" table and then paying the minimum amount of tax because "you said they were simultaneous"?

Of course not, they will tell you to construct the TIMELINE and order to figure out what happened.

Thought Experiment for CASH accounting:

Note this is the exact same validation logic that happens with TTOR where transactions come in A then B then C order. Just as in the example above, the outputs spent by B and C are created in the same block which is valid because they share the same timestamp. The validation logic is the same, it's just easier for the client to search to validate.

If it's the exact same, then why do my nodes need different lines of code to process it?

So again, show me where in the paper an intra-block ordering is specified, because I've read that paper several times over the past several years and reviewed the code, and nothing specifies an ordering, even the quotes you gave.

Answer: anywhere the word 'history' or 'chronological' is mentioned. This is a fact, a statement of the definition. It's trivially true.

BTW, one thing I am playing with now is how a BSV storage server would operate to serve up OP_RETURN data, I can assure you none of the approaches would use TTOR if they were to be cost effective...

Feel free to provide a mathematical proof and/or space+runtime complexity to show your statement is true.

 

[cypherdoc]

why are people so stupid? what's laughable is this entire notion that BU has been "taken over" . how? where are the BSV supporters doing anything wrong other than expressing their opinions here? have they prepared any outrageous total membership reset BUIP's along the lines of @Griffith's and Co-spearheaded by @freetrader that employ deceptive and dubious voting scenarios exploiting yes /no? no. have they directly threatened BU leadership or its members in any way? no. all they've done is apparently win the narrative here in this thread because for whatever reason, every ABC supporter has gone mute in this thread other than @freetrader. maybe, just maybe, the BSV supporter narrative of focusing on the code only and not the person is the most sound and justifiable compared to the actions/arguments from ABC? we can't help it if they've gone mute.

 

[bitsko]

in case anybody missed it, straight from the meme factory here is deadalnix talking shit to the tune of 'mortal kombat' right before he fucked bitcoin cash irreparably:


lolol 'warchest'