Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

i suspect there's something in his methods that is suspect otherwise he could/should have demonstrated this vulnerability

It's actually very simple. There's the same flaw in all these theories, selfish mining, poison block, spam and double spend. Ironically it was Peter who used to use term, back in the old thread. 'Spherical cows in a vacuum'. Various smart scientists have had hypotheses as to why Bitcoin is broken, and to their credit, being good scientists, they've built models to test them. Unfortunately lab conditions don't equate to real world conditions. Their models have all been flawed, because the laboratory, by virtue of it's nature, removes all the economic incentives, that are so fundamental to the networks functionality.

Simply, if you build a working lab model, then can't prove live on the blockchain, the model is broken. Time to reiterate and test again. Otherwise it's bad science.

There are probably other flaws in some of these models, but why examine them further? They all fail at the first hurdle, they are not profitable, if they were, we would have seen them being used in practice. Especially as the rewards of success and reputation are so high.

 

[Richy_T]

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

Shouldn't all clients want and be working on that? Where's the special value that BU offers there?
I mean, we're talking about the part of the protocol that's not set in stone, right? Why not contribute that directly to BSV or some other client?

 

[Peter R]

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?

Yes, as long as Alice and Bob both agree, they can remove the locks (or really do anything they want with the channel state).

But Bob won't want to do this if Charlie had become uncooperative. There is only downside to Bob, despite the upside to Alice. What would happen is that Alice's coins would be returned to her, but Bob's coin would still be locked with Charlie. So Bob is now at risk of losing an amount equal to the value in flight.

Realistically, your attack should mostly work (and people recognize this). An attacker with 1 coin can lock up N other coins, where N is the number of hops in the payment. Since LN is source routed, the attacker can choose a ridiculously long path even going through the same nodes multiple times.

However, this only locks up the "value in flight," not the entire channel. So this is a serious attack vector, but it's not nearly as devastating as if the entire network could be locked up.

 

[Richy_T]

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.

(OK, running with this absurd metaphor)

two spatially separated events

Blocks are solved in one place at the same (one) time.

 

[lunar]

[doublepost=1553810067][/doublepost]Eight blocks in 1:45 mins, five of them over 22MB and one at 57MB
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/575681

 

[Norway]

Blocks are solved in one place at the same (one) time.

What two events are you talking about? Or are you saying that one event at one place happens simultaneously with itself?

You are clearly not "someone who is trained in the field" as you claim.

I don't think you followed the line of argument here. I'm not going to repeat all the quotes.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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.

The opposition to freezing the protocol is more understandable if you think Bitcoin's original protocol is unworkable without changes or at least could be greatly improved. Then it becomes a tradeoff: go forward with a halfbaked protocol or stomach politics for a chance to polish it up?

Someone of that position could even raise the point that at least one competing coin will likely fix these issues and have a natural advantage, arguing that the safe course in a locked-down protocol isn't an option unless the protocol is already without any major flaws (at least flaws that could be easily fixed within a year or two).

That view is natural to those who believe the conventional wisdom that Bitcoin was a mere evolution, saying that Satoshi just put together a few key pieces - chains of digital signatures, proof of work, triple entry accounting, hard-capped supply - that someone else would have stumbled upon in a few years anyway. They are convinced that Bitcoin is just the first lucky shot in the dark that made it over the threshold for becoming an enduring cash system.

That view is even more understandable when you realize how many things in Bitcoin in fact are suboptimal, but that that is because of Core's meddling (in and outside the protocol); and when you realize that Bitcoin in fact currently cannot do a bunch of things other coins can, but that that is again because of Core. They shut down and altered many things that they didn't understand, and the crippled result is what the world sees as "Bitcoin."

The decision to lock down the protocol after restoring it to the functionality of v 0.1 is not a tradeoff for those who believe that the protocol Satoshi created (not the code itself) was actually very well thought out, and that it actually can do everything every other coin tries to do that is worth doing and that all the protocol "innovations" in other coins are in fact errors. That Satoshi didn't just stumble upon the design, but that he thought through most of the designs others have tried, saw the problems, and made all the design choices with great care and considerable broad understanding of even fields all others ignore completely, such as the law around tracing and fungibility as well as other money-law considerations in common, civil, and even Shariah jurisdictions.

The difference between these two starting assumptions becomes such a vast gulf that it's worth calling them two separate paradigms: the "first spaghetti that stuck" paradigm (first e-cash that marginally succeeded) and the "immaculate conception" paradigm (to pick a disadvantageous title as a gimme to detractors). I lean toward the latter; it's not immaculate, but good enough, and far more well thought out that most think. And yes, sorry, the easiest way to see this is to read more Craig Wright (the recent ones are mostly far more coherently written).

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

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



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.



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.

Yeah, the difference is, bsv scales. With bch, you'll run against the 32mb limit. On bsv bu can play its scaling cannons

 

[lunar]

The Cannons go Boom 113MB

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/575702

 

[rocks]

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)

Bingo, that's as concise and accurate of a statement as can be made on the topic.
[doublepost=1553817246][/doublepost]

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?

Are either of these on BSV's plan, if the goal is to lock down the v0.1 protocol, rolling these 2 changes back should be done.

The coin age change was sort of snuck in. I remember when I first found out about it when wanting to move some older coins, I was pissed, but more importantly it was when I first fully understood that something was fundamentally wrong with the development direction and that the direction was not reflective of the overall community on bitcoin talk.
[doublepost=1553818173,1553817002][/doublepost]

The Cannons go Boom 113MB

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/block/575702

It will be interesting to see when miners start to prune OP_RETURN data, there is a real cost to storing TBs of data that is not rewarded in the miner's incentive structure.

 

[bitsko]

I'm not convinced it would be overly burdensome to store many TBs

 

[cypherdoc]

check this out, BCH. only 4min for the follow on block. 113MB! booyah!:

[doublepost=1553820156][/doublepost]

Bingo, that's as concise and accurate of a statement as can be made on the topic.
[doublepost=1553817246][/doublepost]
Are either of these on BSV's plan, if the goal is to lock down the v0.1 protocol, rolling these 2 changes back should be done.

The coin age change was sort of snuck in. I remember when I first found out about it when wanting to move some older coins, I was pissed, but more importantly it was when I first fully understood that something was fundamentally wrong with the development direction and that the direction was not reflective of the overall community on bitcoin talk.
[doublepost=1553818173,1553817002][/doublepost]
It will be interesting to see when miners start to prune OP_RETURN data, there is a real cost to storing TBs of data that is not rewarded in the miner's incentive structure.

what do you mean? miners get paid in sat/byte for the OP_RETURN data,
[doublepost=1553820480][/doublepost]just kicking everybody's ass:

 

[Norway]

I'm not convinced it would be overly burdensome to store many TBs

 

[freetrader]

Is this true?
Well, it certainly is true that https://bsvexplorer.io shows Error: Not found

 

[cypherdoc]

looks good to me:

https://whatsonchain.com/blocks

 

[Richy_T]

What two events are you talking about? Or are you saying that one event at one place happens simultaneously with itself?

Not two. All the transactions in a block are mined into the same block when the block is solved. They occur simultaneously because the block is mined as a single atomic event.

I'm not going any further with this. The pseudoscience is 'crystal healing energy' levels of stupid.
[doublepost=1553823699][/doublepost]

I don't think you followed the line of argument here. I'm not going to repeat all the quotes.

The argument is based on a flawed metaphor. This is why you're reaching irrational conclusions.

 

[cypherdoc]

the other thing that looks good here is the within normal variation 21m of the prior block to the 113MB record block. IOW no problem with ATMP afaict:

 

[Norway]

Yeah, Einstein's special theory of relativity is pseudoscience...

This is why you're reaching irrational conclusions.

What exactly are my irrational conclusions?

Transactions happen in a sequence seen from a miners perspective. Ditching this information with CTOR is bad for accounting.

The point is to accept that the squence can be slightly different from miner to miner without anything being "wrong", just like you do in STR. The sequence is still valuable.

No need to "fix" this with Avalanche and undermine POW.

 

[attila]

They occur simultaneously because the block is mined as a single atomic event.

Wrong. These events in spacetime did not occur at the same time. Furthermore, the child transaction must by definition be after the parent. The minimum time increment possible is the Planck Time.

Merely declaring they happened at the same time does not mean they did. You, me and everyone else knows that those events did not occur at the same time. Who are you kidding. Anyone reading these comments in the future is going to classify your 'simultaneously happened' as wishful or magical thinking.

I'm not going any further with this. The pseudoscience is 'crystal healing energy' levels of stupid.

Not an argument. But you did bring in some "crystal healing energy" to supplement your magical thinking that the transactions somehow "appeared out of nowhere simultaneously" and no way causally/chronologically related.

Calling your opponent stupid: ad-hominem. Absolutely absurd and conveys your ignorance of physical and information theoretic literature. Equating something well accepted in the physics literature for almost 100 years is not 'crystal healing energy'.

Once you stoop to ad-hominem is the moment you have confessed publicly that you have no rebuttals or ability to discuss further.
[doublepost=1553825335][/doublepost]

The argument is based on a flawed metaphor. This is why you're reaching irrational conclusions.

Flawed metaphor?

The physics of Special and General Relativity on not "metaphors". They are physical descriptions of the nature of reality. They are useful. They have predictive power.

You cannot ignore the fundamental properties of information transmission and physical systems. You can't just wave your hand and say "look they happened at the same time because we said so!".

There is actually a lot to discuss that's grounded in reality that is debatable and very interesting.

Can you imagine if Einstein and Bohr were unable to get past "Nooooo... we declared these system events are simultaneous by decree therefore it must be true!" -- they would never have been able to actually have the fine EPR Paradox discussion and the lessons that came out of that!

 

[Richy_T]

Yeah, Einstein's special theory of relativity is pseudoscience...

Attaching it to Bitcoin and trying to extract meaningful results from it is. That's the last I'll say on it.
[doublepost=1553825587][/doublepost]

Calling your opponent stupid: ad-hominem.

I did not. Merely the pseudoscience. The opinions I have about the people pushing it are much milder but I won't air them here.