Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

this is going to be the last post i make to you on the subject because in this scenario your opinion does not matter (not a member)

ah, but it does matter. in three senses :

1. if you insist on labeling me an outsider, then it matters in the sense that I can objectively give the opinion that a total member reset is preposterously unfair to current non officer /dev members

2. given I was a founding member my opinion should matter

3. given these preposterous BUIP's are really a reaction to what's happening here in GCBU, of which I am OP and from which BU was born, then my opinions matter alot.

what you're really trying to do when you say that is cover up the fact your actions are highly biased.

#don't hate on BU, hate GCBU

 

[freetrader]

#don't hate on BU, hate GCBU

@cypherdoc You seem to hate this thread a lot right now, maybe you should write a blog post on "Why you should leave GCBU"

 

[shilch]

@shilch might be able to tell a lot of stories. For example, he and someone else had a 500+-comment-thread on slack about the original nature of op_return, and how it could interact with other (lost) opcodes. Not that I understood much, but there have been a lot of "wow" and "lightbulb" moments. On several occasions CSW stepped in, made a short comment, which first caused confusion, than enthusiasm, because he hinted on something valuable. At least that's my impression of this thread.

It started with OP_RETURN but ended up being mostly about the usefulness of non-push operations in a transaction's scriptSig in the original bitcoin design by leveraging OP_CODESEPARATOR. In the original design it was possible to alter scriptSig (especially inside an nSequence channel) to pass ownership over a coin from person to person adding new spending conditions with each step before recording it on the chain. The possibilities are largely unexplored; Dr. Wright mentioned something along the lines of looping offchain inside scriptSig and only recording the executed branch - which sounds plausible but I'm unsure if and how that's workable in practice.
I found a, what I think, interesting use case where the owner of an UTXO can delegate full control over the UTXO to somebody else. This would allow peer-to-peer payments where an unfinished transaction gets send to the receiver and the receiver can add own inputs and outputs - without using the insecure SIGHASH_NONE|ANYONECANPAY flags.

 

[Griffith]

ah, but it does matter. in three senses :

1. if you insist on labeling me an outsider, then it matters in the sense that I can objectively give the opinion that a total member reset is preposterously unfair to current non officer /dev members

2. given I was a founding member my opinion should matter

3. given these preposterous BUIP's are really a reaction to what's happening here in GCBU, of which I am OP and from which BU was born, then my opinions matter alot.

what you're really trying to do when you say that is cover up the fact your actions are highly biased.

#don't hate on BU, hate GCBU

again. applying the same action to everyone is by definition fair.
I wasn't around at the beginning and i have no idea who you are.
The BUIPs have nothing to do with this thread, i hardly ever read it except for the last day or two because the number of pages was a good indicator that others do so posting here that a new buip came up would reach an audience faster than waiting for people to find it over time.

In addition to you also not actively participating BU as an organization, it is not evident to me that you contribute anything except a wasting others time by being intentionally thick headed and fighting with people over mute points. This is why your opinion matters very little to me.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc You seem to hate this thread a lot right now, maybe you should write a blog post on "Why you should leave GCBU"

everyone knows you're a smart guy (organization). so you pretending not to get sarcasm doesn't fly around here.
[doublepost=1553954044][/doublepost]@Griffith

>In addition to you also not actively participating BU as an organization, it is not evident to me that you contribute anything except a wasting others time by being intentionally thick headed and fighting with people over mute points. This is why your opinion matters very little to me.

it matters enough for you to spam this thread of which I'm OP. BU is GCBU.

 

[79b79aa8]

Core's strategy will not work again, but you have been so traumatized by past battles that you are fighting an enemy that doesn't exist today, while embracing your true enemy. What guarantee does BSV offer you that they will "lock down the protocol", even if that makes any sense? Craig's word?

@majamalu, please find me one place where i have expressed uncritical support of BSV or CSW (save your time, i haven't). what i have been is critical of ABC, because it led BCH down a path from which i don't see a way out.

bizarrely this gets read as "embracing the enemy". manichean thinking leads to error. be concerned with avoiding error.

 

[bitsko]

again. applying the same action to everyone is by definition fair.
I wasn't around at the beginning and i have no idea who you are.
The BUIPs have nothing to do with this thread, i hardly ever read it except for the last day or two because the number of pages was a good indicator that others do so posting here that a new buip came up would reach an audience faster than waiting for people to find it over time.

In addition to you also not actively participating BU as an organization, it is not evident to me that you contribute anything except a wasting others time by being intentionally thick headed and fighting with people over mute points. This is why your opinion matters very little to me.

Please remind me what differentiates your approach from the approach suggested by greg maxwell on reddit?

 

[79b79aa8]

PS - i ask again (maybe @Mengerian could answer?)

with @micropresident no longer maintaining the ABC client, who is in stewardship of the BCH protocol?

 

[freetrader]

@79b79aa8 : you are (but he is too - if he wants to [1]).

We are all Satoshi. We are all stewards of that invention, the Bitcoin protocol.

[1] he is still contributing to ABC afaik

what i have been is critical of ABC, because it led BCH down a path from which i don't see a way out.

Everyone has every right to be critical of anyone else.
And fortunately we have uncensored forums where people can express their criticism (this one still counting among them, thanks @cypherdoc peace be upon your name).

I do see a way out of what you apparently see as a hopeless situation - capture of some sort.

The way out is competition.

 

[79b79aa8]

nah, i have no power over it. not even marginally through BU.

 

[freetrader]

nah, i have no power over it. not even marginally through BU.

Negative thinking will always stop a person from acting effectively.

 

[Richy_T]

That is not a consensus rule. It is design decision made by the developers of the software implementation. It is irrelevant.

It is very relevant if someone is using the argument for retaining the previous ordering system that it is because it provides properties that it actually doesn't.

 

[freetrader]

everyone knows you're a smart guy (organization)

I am not that smart (*). Plus, I'm just an organism . I wouldn't call myself an organization.

(*) this is why I believe organizations like BU, which bring people together, can build better products than individuals. That, and the fact that specialization aka division of labor seems inherently how humans got to be what they are.

 

[Richy_T]

maybe I should have said the idea of doing a total membership reset to devs only is "preposterous". is that better?

At the moment, I'm not too fussed about people leaving because the leavers are leaving for reasons which are incompatible with the ethos of BU. BU benefits from robust discussion. If it ever becomes a place of ideological purity, I'm outta here too. It would be just another shitty echo chamber at that point.
[doublepost=1553956687][/doublepost]

That assumes limited block size.

Only the last bit of the statement assumes (or states) that though. I don't know enough about the code to be sure (which is why I went to the wiki) but it seems like the kind of code that would always operate, not that would only be triggered on mempool>blocksizelimit. Maybe I'll have a look at some blocks.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Have anybody here seen the face of @freetrader ever?

He has been and is one of the most respectful and intelligent people in this space. Can't say that about a lot of people whose face I've seen.

I might be rough around the edges. But I'm very intelligent.

I had the feeling, that people started copying CSW's style. Funny to see how that works.

But honestly... I had similar thoughts about freetrader, he's acting like from a playbook since november

Sad to see, that tribalism blinds people this way. freetrader has been very consistent for years.
But compare, for example, cypherdoc a few years before and now. It's like two different persons.

You are one of these anonymous monikers that have become a voting member in BU.

He's also a very intelligent contributor to BCH.

There is a reason, that people stay anonymous in this space. Remember Satoshi Nakamoto?

What do you think about ignoring anonymous people from becoming BU members? Isn't that a great idea to protect the organization from sybils?

It's also a great idea to avoid a lot of positive influence.

I'm just disappointed that you side with ABC against BSV after ABC developers attacked and smeared BU in public

Let it go with the fucking tribalism. If you think, that the kind of lawsuits we are seeing now against open source devs are in any way excusable you are full of shit. Period.

It has nothing to do with whether you like ABC, BSV or whatever coin. And it doesn't mean, that Amaury's actions are excusable either.


Sidenote: I keep BSV as a hedge against Amaurycoin. So, Amaury is in fact responsible for a loss of value of BCH.
And who knows what happens if the BSV side suddenly gets rid of CSW and Ayre..

 

[Richy_T]

In the future, miners can agree to orphan any blocks where the order is a total mess from what they personally saw. This is only possible with TTOR.

Why would they care to? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.
[doublepost=1553957164][/doublepost]

Everybody who gives a tiny shit on CSW should leave BU.

I thought that was McAfee?

 

[KoKansei]

If you think, that the kind of lawsuits we are seeing now against open source devs are in any way excusable you are full of shit. Period

In not sure whether here you mean that the lawsuit itself is frivolus or that the defendants should be immune by virtue of their status as "open source developers." Could you elaborate on your reasoning here?

 

[shilch]

Why would they care to? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

Wherever miners have the chance to orphan invalid blocks, they can make money. And at the same time, they increase the value of the blockchain.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

that the defendants should be immune by virtue of their status as "open source developers."

I don't think that Hans Reiser should be a free man because he was an open source developer.

Clear enough?

 

[Zarathustra]

There is a reason, that people stay anonymous in this space.

Yes, the decadence of our species (aka progress). It's dangerous to act openly and transparently. But it's a disgusting situation for real persons getting attacked and stalked by anonymous accounts.