Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
I'm game for war meme's. you know I like meme's:

-scared soldiers run and hide (resign)

-real revolutionists stay and fight (with the sharp sword of sound & convicted arguments)

*don't hate on BU, hate GCBU :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko and Norway

attila

Member
Mar 27, 2019
53
116
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.
Just wanted to point out that Satoshi wrote the code before the white paper. The protocol specification is written into working code before he wrote that paper.

It is clear as that Satoshi intended chronological ordering because he spent hours writing it according to that spec.

Maybe some people value documentation over working code, but I prefer the code as the ultimate manifestation of the persons intentions.

Even so, by reading the document it is trivially true that he intended "chronological order" and did not mean "chronological only on time scales greater than 10 minutes" (wtf?)

The key is answering how you will provide the timeline to the IRS of what happened and providing cryptographic proof that your ordering is correct and not tampered with (ie: backed by proof of work)

The last point is central to being used as a CASH ACCOUNTING system. It's impossible with BCH today. Peer to peer cash is simply infeasible with BCH due to this fatal protocol fork.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
>It is clear as that Satoshi intended chronological ordering because he spent hours writing it according to that spec.

this is the best argument i've ever heard for TTOR. can you link the exact code that specifies this?
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
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.
Yeah, QM is the real mind-fuck. There's a lot we know but a whole lot that's just plain weird
[doublepost=1553786019][/doublepost]
Set in stone means the protocol itself will not change.
But there is much development needed to scale and make the implementation better.
Right. And that's all well and good but BU's foundation *was* to provide a method to change the protocol and not so much about development and scaling. In fact, arguably, the "oops" with x-thin (a good improvement and something I supported) set back the protocol improvement efforts quite severely.

If SV wants to adopt scaling and implementation improvements that BU brings about, they are certainly free to do so as it's all open source. I just question the role of BU in the SV ecosystem. I'm not going to fight it if we decide to, just food for thought.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
>And that's all well and good but BU's foundation *was* to provide a method to change the protocol and not so much about development and scaling.

as one of it's founders, for me, it was always about the primary goal of massively scaling
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
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.
I'm not here to give a lesson on relativity, which is really what is required. Especially when George Gamow has done such a good job of it. It's not the place for such things in any case.

Not that it's important anyway. It just pegged my bullshit pseudo-science meter. If you try and build anything on this flawed metaphor, you will get flawed outcomes is all.

And apologies for the ninja edits. It's a bad habit. It's not malicious, sometimes I just see a better way of wording something or something I missed.
 

attila

Member
Mar 27, 2019
53
116
>It is clear as that Satoshi intended chronological ordering because he spent hours writing it according to that spec.

this is the best argument i've ever heard for TTOR. can you link the exact code that specifies this?
The entire transaction acceptance logic is like that. A transaction can only be accepted if it's parent inputs are present and valid. It preserves causality (ie: a dependent tx has all necessary and sufficient inputs existing prior to it).

Once you remove causal ordering, you necessarily remove "chronological ordering" because by definition causal order is also chronological order.

The white paper is crystal clear that it's a timestamp server and preserving chronological ordering. The mental gymnastics of saying it's only for > 10 minute increments is absurd and betrays their lack of understanding of General Relativity and century old understanding of "time". The problem of double-spending is fundamentally a problem of tracking time and causality (ie: chronology)

The code is also written such that the causal order is preserved. Not just the code, the underlying consensus protocol requires that causality (ie: chronology) is preserved.

Try to feed back a Bitcoin 0.1 node a block where the the inputs are reversed and see it reject the block as invalid (because it is invalid)


Also, the newspeak of 'TTOR' is very clever on the BCH side.

It is clear from the paper and the code that Bitcoin is chronologically ordered (ie: CTOR acronym is best).

Yet they somehow "elevate" the term "lexicographical" to "canonical" (as if it's of some canon or some law). They replaced the apt acronym of 'CTOR' for the obvious 'chronological' with 'canonical' to actually mean 'lexicographical' and then downgraded 'chronological' to 'topological' (TTOR)

This is some serious next level Orwellian shit.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
didn't satoshi also write in the code first seen first accepted into the node implementations which when played with nicely fits perfectly well with block TTOR (sorry). however, if someone is successful in somehow getting first into the mempool a double spend child (very difficult i know), how does first seen first accepted help in maintaining truth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and attila

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
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?
And yet all transactions in a block share the same timestamp, which by definition means they did happen simultaneously.

Bitcoin exists within itself. Transaction A coming before transaction B in the real world is immaterial. The only thing that matters is their representation within the blockchain. If they are in the same block they happened at once, if transaction B is in a following block, then it happened later. It's that simple. You can't look at the real world for meaning, you can only look at the block chain.
 

attila

Member
Mar 27, 2019
53
116
>however, if someone is successful in somehow getting first into the mempool a double spend child (very difficult i know), how does first seen first accepted help in maintaining truth?

What do you mean by 'truth'?

There is no "true time" or "real time" or "what really happened". That's the amazing insight of General Relativity.

Who's to say the "double spend" is not the "original"?

>how does first seen first accepted help in maintaining truth?

The first seen rule is not about maintaining truth. It's about maintaining the nodes own internal integrity.

As long as each node follows the rule, then the benefits are purely to the node itself.

Why? Because:

- Less logic needs to be added when following a simple rule (less cpu, less energy, less bugs/code)

- It means each node has integrity and will respect the intentions of the users of the ledger (because obviously the user wanted the first tx to go through....that's why they broadcast it first!)

- It gives the node an audit/debugging trail of what happened when receiving transactions on the network. It indicates how well (or poor) they are connected. This is valuable information to optimize node operations.

Notice that all the reasons above are purely internal to the node. That's why the rule is beneficial.

Now if everyone follows this rule, then we have 2nd order effects too (that are bonuses, but not strictly required)...it means that as a whole:

- The value of the network goes up because they respect the intention of the users of the ledger
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I just question the role of BU in the SV ecosystem.
I'm not afraid to question the role of of SV in the BU ecosystem.

Coming back to @cypherdoc's
BSV supporter narrative of focusing on the code only
Why have SV supporters not been contributing to the BU codebase at all prior to BitcoinSV coming about?

Or have they?

See, I don't see their code contributions to BU going back in time from my observations of BU development.

In the BU slack, I asked the question "I'd like to ask the BU members here who actually runs the BSV version of BU?"

So far, only one person has come forward.

Maybe there are BU members reading this thread who are not in the slack but who'd like to raise their hand and claim that they run a node.

I'm trying to get a feel for how organic this SV support actually is, given that current figures put the number of BU nodes on SV network at 7.

 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

attila

Member
Mar 27, 2019
53
116
And yet all transactions in a block share the same timestamp, which by definition means they did happen simultaneously.
You cannot just say it's simultaneous and say "by definition". It's not. Nothing in the universe is simultaneous with other reference frames. This is a mathematical and logical fallacy. See General Relativity and the Lorentz transform for a mathematical proof of this FACT.

If your definition violates the nature of reality and violates mathematical proof...then you can justify anything. Because once you introduce a contradiction or logic error, then you can construct any proof to "proof" anything.

Bitcoin exists within itself.
No. It doesn't. This is patently false and ignorant of 100 years of physics experiments and mathematics.
Bitcoin (or any system) exists in the minds of the agents interacting with the system -- necessarily so. There is no such thing as "self contained system with no external influence". Absurdity and complete non-sense. See the basic literature on modern physics for a thorough treatment of the subject.

Transaction A coming before transaction B in the real world is immaterial.
It is NOT immaterial that your reply to my comment came after I made my post. If it's immaterial, then why didn't you post your reply to my comment before my comment appeared?

It's NOT immaterial to the IRS and other audit agencies of what order of transactions were performed in.

You're now joking with me right?

The only thing that matters is their representation within the blockchain.
Yet for some reason you felt it necessary to a) represent it with neurons in your brain and b) represent it in conversation on this forum.

If that's the only thing that matters is the representation in the blockchain -- then why are you showing us that you obviously think it also matters to NOT just represent it in the blockchain?

You have now recorded the representation in at least 3 systems: a) This forum, b) your brain system, c) my brain system.

You can't make a statement and then do the exact opposite with your actions. Your message is contradictory and therefore cannot be used to form a coherent understanding.

If they are in the same block they happened at once,
You are just restating that "transactions in blocks happened simultaneously". It is obvious they did not and cannot. There is the Planck limit in the base case to contend with. And even if they did, it's still non-sensical from a REALITY and PHYSICAL understanding. See GR.

It's that simple. You can't look at the real world for meaning, you can only look at the block chain.
Your actions are contradicting your message. Here you are saying you can only look at the blockchain for meaning, yet here you are looking "into the real world" (ie: this forum and interacting with us) to talk about it.

And BTW the "real world" is all of it. You do not get to decide and group things into nice piles "real" versus "not real". Care to share with us an example of a "not real" thing?

But let me answer this directly as well (assuming your contradiction wasn't fatal to the argument...which it is).

It's that simple. You can't look at the real world for meaning, you can only look at the block chain.
- The blockchain itself is the time ordered sequence of spacetime events. The 'timestamp' is just a convenience parameter. Someone could have written "cute bunnies1234" into that timestamp field and the entire blockchain and time keeping system would continue to function perfectly by merely using the chronological ordering as the 'clock'
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I'm not here to give a lesson on relativity, which is really what is required. Especially when George Gamow has done such a good job of it. It's not the place for such things in any case.

Not that it's important anyway. It just pegged my bullshit pseudo-science meter. If you try and build anything on this flawed metaphor, you will get flawed outcomes is all.

And apologies for the ninja edits. It's a bad habit. It's not malicious, sometimes I just see a better way of wording something or something I missed.
My bullshit meter is triggered when people resort to appeal to authority. You don't bring any arguments other than "I'm an expert, you're not". Maybe you shouldn't have trusted me when I said I had a two week correspondance course in physics.

I didn't see your ninja edits as malicious. I just saw lack of competence.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Why have SV supporters not been contributing to the BU codebase at all prior to BitcoinSV coming about?
why is it surprising that many of us are not coders? i'd bet the majority of founding BU supporters and current members are not coders. are we back to the narrative that only coders matter? that's core-like dude. BU's foundation was built on the premise that Bitcoin is more than just code; it proponents are multidisciplinary with just as much emphasis on economics as code. you might as well gut the entire membership if you want to ban all non-coders. in fact, i'll go as far as to say given all the drama of the last 10 yrs, Bitcoin is a financial system that relies on economic incentives; code is just a necessary inconvenience.

>I'm trying to get a feel for how organic this SV support actually is, given that current figures put the number of BU nodes on SV network at 7.

personally, i'm just sitting back and waiting for a clear winner before i run any node. the good thing, from a BSV supporters viewpoint, is that Bitcoin is a small world network of highly interconnected miners. it hardly matters that i don't run a node. maybe one day as the system gains more value and if maintaining multiple copies of the ledger in way off places is deemed important.

dude, do you have any idea how Core-like you've become?
 

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
Why have SV supporters not been contributing to the BU codebase at all prior to BitcoinSV coming about?
Maybe not evey BU member is a C++ coder.
Is that your metric for who can voice his thoughts?

BU was created with the intention to give all participants in the BU ecosystem to have a voice.
It is clear that not everyone votes with the same level of knowledge but we know that if you have a big enough number of people that are from as many backgrounds as possible you will get a good result even if some voted in a suboptimal way.

Maybe there are BU members reading this thread who are not in the slack but who'd like to raise their hand and claim that they run a node.
I have been running such a node since the split but stopped two weeks ago because the APIs I got on BSV were that good that I didn't see a need to run one myself.
Maybe I'll spin one up again in the future.

If SV wants to adopt scaling and implementation improvements that BU brings about, they are certainly free to do so as it's all open source. I just question the role of BU in the SV ecosystem. I'm not going to fight it if we decide to, just food for thought.
The role of BU in BSV depends entirely on BU.
BU can prove itself again as the best scaling implementation (BitcoinSV is catching up very quickly) and introduce features that might help some features less important to miners.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Maybe not evey BU member is a C++ coder.
I asked about SV supporters, not BU members.

The issue here is exactly that these skills should be distributed in the same proportion among the community. After all, we were once a united Bitcoin Cash community, and the split just about runs through the middle of BU membership.

So I'm not expecting every SV-supporting BU member to be a "C++ coder".
Hell no. I'm just asking:
- are there any at all?
I have been running such a node since the split but stopped two weeks ago because the APIs I got on BSV were that good that I didn't see a need to run one myself.
Ok, thanks for the feedback @torusJKL. Mind asking which APIs for SV obsoleted your need to run a BU node.
Is that your metric for who can voice his thoughts?
You should know me better after all this time.
 
Last edited:

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
In the BU slack, I asked the question "I'd like to ask the BU members here who actually runs the BSV version of BU?"
.....
I'm trying to get a feel for how organic this SV support actually is, given that current figures put the number of BU nodes on SV network at 7.
Ahww bless, Freetrader still thinks hobbyist archival wallets, matter to the network. It's not 2012 anymore Dorothy.

5. Network
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.
Current estimates put the cost at setting up a profitable mining operation in the order of anywhere between 10-100 million $. How many BU members have that sort of financial backing? This is the whole problem, dev arrogance, thinking their code decisions are more relevant than the bottom line of the mining industry. If you want to make consensus critical decisions go work for, or become a miner. Alternatively if you can't afford that, continue like @deadalnix shitposting on reddit and see what difference it makes.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/648ffdd6922d0b4d54cc4ef9e2e39eea490f9bb4f618642ba01875a0de5db5eb
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
i know why ABC supporters and their arguments have gone mute. all their arguments about how dangerous 128MB would/should be have been vaporized by BSV.

how many months did i argue with @jtoomim about my beliefs that raising the limit this high would not be detrimental? what happened to his 22MB ATMP maximum blocksize argument and or anything close to or exceeding 32MB resulting network breakage? what happened to @sickpig's objection to the 103MB et al blocks being non-organic (miner generated) and dependent on p2p network tx propagation limitations taking block intervals out to 60 min? all the 51, 56MB blocks being pumped out now are user generated and propagating and validating fine with absolutely no delays. why won't @solex answer me when i object to his conclusion that "if the last 6 mo or so of big blocks have shown is that the demand for excess supply is not needed and thus no need to raise the blocksize" with my just as valid counter argument that big institutions are probably still victims of Fidelity Effect suspicions? does he disagree and if so why not say? is @theZerg silent b/c OPRETURN is turning out to be the most efficient use of building a hybrid internal onchain/offchain Bitcoin economy via it's highly desired attributes of being able to be pruned and highly functional scripting that uniquely taps OPRETURN capabilities without touching the protocol via GROUP? why is @Peter R silent? is it b/c there still haven't been any real life reports/complaints from merchants about double spends? i'm aware of his 2000+ supposed double spend experiment the details of which i haven't bothered to look at. i suspect there's something in his methods that is suspect otherwise he could/should have demonstrated this vulnerability in BTC or even BSV, with BTC being really the only most significant economic coin at the moment that could severely penalize him economically if he got this wrong. there's a difference btwn sitting behind your computer and running simultaneously broadcasted tx's as a test vs actually having to wait for a real world digital product to be received/approved before sending the double spend attempt. or having to go up against a u/whereissatoshi Queensland merchant who's running 100 nodes to prevent double spends.

furthermore, all the small block implementations (BTC, BU, ABC) predicted that we'd get spam/poison blocks from going to 128MB block limits. where the hell are they? could it be that we were right? that the small but obligatory fees and miner soft limits and unknown capabilities of the original Bitcoin (BSV) are really effective at stopping those bogus theories/attacks? my pouring pennies down a black hole water well analogy is looking pretty good right now given how seamlessly BSV has ate up all these revolutionary megablocks being pushed out by BSV users.

we know they are mute, as opposed to gone, b/c they do pop in here from time to time to defend some overthetop slander against their rep.
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
[doublepost=1553794424][/doublepost]
The issue here is exactly that these skills should be distributed in the same proportion among the community. After all, we were once a united Bitcoin Cash community, and the split just about runs through the middle of BU membership.
The people who see themselves as "protocol developers" prefer BCH because the protocol on BCH is developed. Not set in stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
You should know me better after all this time.
damn straight. we've gotten to know you very well. how does your free trade speech fit with your coder's only membership reset proposal? or your Core-like "muh full node" metrics?