Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[torusJKL]

Ok, thanks for the feedback @torusJKL. Mind asking which APIs for SV obsoleted your need to run a BU node.

I'm currently using the MoneyButton, the bsv js library, unwriters bitdb's and bitindex by @attila.

Using a full node was quite hard for me as I'm not an experianced programmer.
The listed items above allow me to easily interact with the blockchain.
[doublepost=1553795176][/doublepost]

I asked about SV supporters, not BU members.

I see. I didn't realize that you made this differentiation.

I think with a fixed protocol Bitcoin gets more attractive to all kinds of people and developers might not be the majority anymore.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[cypherdoc]

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?

you know the best part of all this acrimony is? the more you talk, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. @freetrader
[doublepost=1553795651][/doublepost]this is the best part of why this thread is turning out to be even more immutable and long lived than Bitcoin itself . even i can't shut it down, lol. it encourages free speech and the fleshing out of ideas. so we can be clear on who's who and where they stand. it's filled with smart ppl who are familiar with nuance, sarcasm, and intuition that can't be bullshitted.

 

[freetrader]

I see. I didn't realize that you made this differentiation.

When asking a question, I differentiate between two sets that are not equivalent.

Thanks for your answers though.

I think with a fixed protocol Bitcoin gets more attractive to all kinds of people and developers might not be the majority anymore.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Time will tell how much of that promise can be kept by BSV, and how it works out in the real world.

Some people don't understand the difference between 'protocol developer' and 'developer'. Not that the line is always perfectly clear, but I'm not even talking about fine nuances.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I don't know if this is approbriate, but I tried out to write something like an open letter from BU members. It is my opinion, but if anybody agrees, we could sign it, and I'm happy to change it to make it more integrative for BU members. I hope even freetrader could get on board.

It's on Github, so it's like I am a dev

https://github.com/theBergmann/openletterbu/blob/master/letter.md

 

[kostialevin]

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?"

Here I am! But it's a private node.

(Just because I know listening node are not useful when public)

 

[cypherdoc]

that's pretty damn good and sums up nicely.

@Christoph Bergmann
[doublepost=1553796196][/doublepost]

Here I am! But it's a private node.

(Just because I know listening node are not useful when public)

haha. that's a good one given how secretive he is with his own shit. i wouldn't answer or identify yourself to any of his questions, as i still think he's a TPTB operative.

 

[Peter R]

Visualizing HTLCs and the Lightning Network’s Dirty Little Secret:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/visualizing-htlcs-and-the-lightning-networks-dirty-little-secret-cb9b5773a0

 

[attila]

I asked about SV supporters, not BU members.

And your original question:

"Why have SV supporters not been contributing to the BU codebase at all prior to BitcoinSV coming about?"

I don't see how this matters or is anyway connected to your argument. But I'll bite.

Do you remember about... a year ago when Bitcoin Unlimited had a job posting for a C++ developer? I do, because I considered applying and excited about the opportunity to contribute.

However a couple of things that are related that dissuaded me from contributing and even applying for this job.

1) I have a good consulting role already. Why change a good thing? Why would I want to make less money?

2) The behavior of some Bitcoin Unlimited members turned me off. But this is secondary to point 1).

There are likely many other people making good money and also tired of the politics.

And Bitcoin Unlimited is about politics. Why else would they support creating a client for something that is clearly not Bitcoin?

It's obvious that BCH cannot be used as CASH since there's no way to provide cryptographic proof of accounts paid and received in a timeline, backed by PoW.

Whatever BCH is, it's not Bitcoin. It's something else, and it's certainly not possible to use it as a CASH accounting system anymore due to LTOR.

You can keep the same name and pretend all you want, but it's obvious from the outside to the hundreds, if not thousands of us "silent supporters", that Bitcoin Unlimited supports something that is obviously not Bitcoin.

Why the hell would we get involved earlier when it's plain to see?

We finally have some companies with the gumption to say they will scale the software and provide a rock solid Bitcoin protocol foundation for us to build on top of.

It was so disappointing to see precious time wasted by BU members even pretending that LTOR has anything to do with CASH usage and even resembling Bitcoin.

It's shocking that we even have to explain this. BCH is NOT cash. Cannot be used as cash. And whatever it is, it's also not Bitcoin. The white paper is crystal clear on what's intended behind chronological ordering.

Frankly, it's false representation to call the group "Bitcoin Unlimited" anymore. When really you mean "Not-Bitcoin Unlimited". Or being generous it should be "BCH Unlimited" or "Mostly Bitcoin Unlimited".

 

[cypherdoc]

Visualizing HTLCs and the Lightning Network’s Dirty Little Secret:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/visualizing-htlcs-and-the-lightning-networks-dirty-little-secret-cb9b5773a0

when are you going on McCormack's channel?

 

[Peter R]

@cypherdoc: not till first half of April.

 

[cypherdoc]

really looking forward to that!
[doublepost=1553797942][/doublepost]@Peter R btw, i've noticed how McCormack constantly interrupts his interviewees by going off on a tangent with his own personal irrelevant musings/interjections to the point i've just ignored what could've been really great interviews of really great interviewees. it's maddening. i think he just likes the sound of his own voice. you will be considered one of those great interviewees, so don't let him keep interrupting until you get your entire point across. i'm serious. if you want a great example of this, listen to the Andrew Poelstra interview.

 

[freetrader]

And Bitcoin Unlimited is about politics. Why else would they support creating a client for something that is clearly not Bitcoin?

[...]

You can keep the same name and pretend all you want, but it's obvious from the outside to the hundreds, if not thousands of us "silent supporters", that Bitcoin Unlimited supports something that is obviously not Bitcoin.

[...]

Frankly, it's false representation to call the group "Bitcoin Unlimited" anymore. When really you mean "Not-Bitcoin Unlimited". Or being generous it should be "BCH Unlimited" or "Mostly Bitcoin Unlimited".

Attila, so you don't consider BCH to be valid Bitcoin.
That's your right to an opinion there. Fare well.

 

[torusJKL]

@cypherdoc: not till first half of April.

Don't let it become "in 18 months".

 

[attila]

>So you don't consider BCH to be valid Bitcoin. That's your right to an opinion there. Fare well.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact. The paper is clear what a "valid Bitcoin" is -- it is one where the inputs precede the outputs in a block.
[doublepost=1553799515][/doublepost]

So you don't consider BCH to be valid Bitcoin. That's your right to an opinion there. Fare well.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact. The paper is clear what a "valid Bitcoin" is -- it is one where the inputs precede the outputs in a block.

Furthermore, BCH is not a CASH SYSTEM anymore. This is also a fact.

How do you think I can generate proof that my corporate accounts paid and received appear in a specific timeline for the IRS or for corporate auditors?

"...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...." - Satoshi Nakamoto

Please do let me know how I can generate a provably TIMELINE for my accountants of what happened in my corporate accounts for purposes of audit and tax. It needs to be cryptographically signed so we know it was not tampered with (ie: backed by PoW). That's the whole point damn point of a blockchain.

Once you realize it's not possible without using another outside blockchain, that's when you realize BCH has nothing to do with CASH. That use-case is no longer feasible nor efficient.

Facts. Not opinions.

 

[shilch]

Visualizing HTLCs and the Lightning Network’s Dirty Little Secret:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/visualizing-htlcs-and-the-lightning-networks-dirty-little-secret-cb9b5773a0

Hey Peter, just registered here to ask a question since you seem to have a deep knowledge in how the lightning network BOLT internals work: If Alice sent a payment to Bob that is still hash- and timelocked, and Bob can't unlock it because Charlie didn't reveal the preimage yet, can Alice and Bob agree to reverse the payment to make this channel available for other payments or will they have to wait till after the timelock? Can a payment travel over a channel that has another locked-payment pending?
Just thinking about possible attack scenarios: If they had to wait for the timelock to run out, it would be possible for an attacker to send a 1-sat transaction to herself that travels through every single routing node in the lightning network, but the attacker never reveals the preimage and hence takes down the whole lightning network till [insert locktime here]. Would that be possible?

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann
Great open letter. However, I can't sign it with the last sentence:

We are interested in a future of BCH - and BSV - and will further this.

I think multiple cryptocurrencies are destructive to the network effect of bitcoin and undermines the whole project.

 

[Richy_T]

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.

It might help to dispose of the chronological terminology for a bit because while that's valid for blocks, it has no real meaning within blocks. In database terminology, the transactions within a block are "atomic" which means they occur as one (and are also undone as one should a roll-back or orphan occur).
[doublepost=1553803683][/doublepost]

See General Relativity and the Lorentz transform for a mathematical proof of this FACT.

*bangs head on table*
[doublepost=1553804486,1553803416][/doublepost]

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.

Sure. But what does BU bring to BSV if not protocol updates? All the other good stuff it might do is available under the open source ethos anyway. If it's going to be "just another client" does that fit with BU's remit? I mean, isn't this the crisis BU is facing right now with BCH? The protocol is completely under control of Amaury.

 

[torusJKL]

But what does BU bring to BSV if not protocol updates?

Easy, improve the implementation of the protocol to scale to Petabyte blocks (and more if needed).

If it's going to be "just another client" does that fit with BU's remit?

That's why it has to get back to be the best at scaling.
No other implementation was able to do what BU had tested and presented at Scaling Bitcoin at Stanford a year ago.

But the head start is slipping away quickly.

I mean, isn't this the crisis BU is facing right now with BCH? The protocol is completely under control of Amaury.

There's the difference.
On the BCH chain BU will always play the second Violine.
ABC will do how it thinks best and BU will need to integrate or get out of consensus every 6 months.

Protocoll changes by BU will only be accepted if it suits ABC.
From time to time ABC might throw BU a bone but in general the roadmap is defined and implemented by ABC.

On BSV on the other hand BU can become first Violine in certain areas by becoming the best implementation in that one.

At scale not every node will do everything the same way and with the same performance.

There is much specialization room for BU if it can get behind the idea that the protocol is fixed and that there is no politics in who can get in what code anymore.

 

[Norway]

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.

*bangs head on table*

It's special, not general relativity (just a typo I assume), but the point stands solid as a rock. If you want to learn, @Richy_T and @rocks, you can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer'sreference frame.

 

[bitsko]

Aren't there any common ground projects remaining?

1. Doesn't nearly everybody want to get rid of the dust limit? Has anyone?
2. Doesn't nearly everybody want to have the coin age mechanics back? Does any implementation have it back?

But I do agree with Norway, multiple bitcoins is detrimental to the endgame of Bitcoin.
two bitcoins is doubling the issuance and number of coin and halving the network effect and security