Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

I thought that was McAfee?

 

[freetrader]

I say, just use the crypto that works best for you.

The Bitcoin Cash community doesn't even mind if you keep your options open. Thanks largely to BS/Core's stifling of early BTC it's practically a necessity now.

 

[Norway]

Got permission from JVP to post this screenshot here:

 

[rocks]

An interesting observation, none of the comments against BSV I have seen have been against BSV itself it's properties or code or protocol, instead all have been against CSW. This includes both the past several weeks and reading posts from last Nov during the split.

Does anyone have a reason to not like BSV that does not involve CSW?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@rocks
from my memory:
a. incompetent op_code implementations
b. not including useful op_codes *1)
c. patent hell
d. small and closed ecosystem *2)
e. a roadmap that won't work (muh v.1.0 muh Satoshis Vision)
f. aggressive community using mafia methods

*1) Stuff like OP_GROUP or OP_SIGVERIFY or the like aren't necessary but they are there and surely not a reason to fork over
*2) this is partly due to c and other stuff like... CSW and nChain.

 

[Zarathustra]

"But CSW" is BCH's only argument left against BSV.

 

[imaginary_username]

Do people really say "I'm very intelligent" unironically? That is a thing people do?

 

[rocks]

@rocks
from my memory:
a. incompetent op_code implementations
b. not including useful op_codes *1)
c. patent hell
d. small and closed ecosystem *2)
e. a roadmap that won't work (muh v.1.0 muh Satoshis Vision)
f. aggressive community using mafia methods

*1) Stuff like OP_GROUP or OP_SIGVERIFY or the like aren't necessary but they are there and surely not a reason to fork over
*2) this is partly due to c and other stuff like... CSW and nChain.

a) Can you point to specific issues? I've seen these complaints on the shift opcodes and frankly agree with BSV's implementation
b) Not BSV itself (new opcodes in another chain is an argument for another chain, not against one, plus I'd argue that BSV can do just about anything needed while staying away from trying to do too much as ETH has done)
c) Not BSV itself
d) Not BSV itself
e) Not BSV itself
f) Not BSV itself

Out of all of this only a) is directed at BSV, but everything I've seen on this topic has fallen flat.

 

[shilch]

@rocks
from my memory:
a. incompetent op_code implementations
b. not including useful op_codes *1)
c. patent hell
d. small and closed ecosystem *2)
e. a roadmap that won't work (muh v.1.0 muh Satoshis Vision)
f. aggressive community using mafia methods

*1) Stuff like OP_GROUP or OP_SIGVERIFY or the like aren't necessary but they are there and surely not a reason to fork over
*2) this is partly due to c and other stuff like... CSW and nChain.

b) The idea is to have a fixed set of opcodes that are not going to change, so that miners can run SPUs (Script Processing Units) with a fixed instruction set and SPV wallets don't have to be upgraded every six months because there's this cool new opcode. Also, I don't consider OP_GROUP a useful opcode, it's not a "real" opcode at all
c) Unrelated to BSV
e) 0.1 protocol, not 0.1 code

 

[79b79aa8]

@shilch just to clarify, there is no OP_GROUP proposal, it got replaced by GROUP. the latter was an evolution of the former proposed by BU for the BCH chain, but it got vetoed by ABC. GROUP has obviously never been proposed for the BSV chain. all in all, BU is not currently pushing for the implementation of GROUP.

 

[Otaci]

Got permission from JVP to post this screenshot here:

They are wrong, its not the most critical part.
[doublepost=1553968488,1553967798][/doublepost]I'll expand on that a bit: It is certainly an important part, but bitcoind is a complex system and has to be viewed holistically. If you take a single piece of it, improve it, and think that it will solve your problems, you will be sorely disappointed.

 

[lunar]

 

[jessquit]

Satoshi's fork design is the guarantee that you can always maintain a chain where the core design doesn't change.

If that's true then how does one evade an undesirable soft fork imposed by a hashpower majority, like Segwit ?

Most any aspect of the design can be changed by soft fork, and there's nothing you can do about such a change other than create a hard fork of your own (make an altcoin ).

 

[Zarathustra]

> Most any aspect of the design can be changed by soft fork, and there's nothing you can do about such a change other than create a hard fork of your own (make an altcoin ).

BTC became an altcoin with the Segwit "soft"fork. Bitcoin has been maintained with the BCH hardfork, until they fucked up too.

 

[jessquit]

@zarathuatra you evaded my question. Also, BTC only became an altcoin in your imagination.

I wish it were so, but alas, you're delusional.
[doublepost=1553973355][/doublepost]

Does anyone have a reason to not like BSV that does not involve CSW?

"revert to the v0.1 protocol & lock it down"

Also, vision of BSV blockchain as a storage device for arbitrarily large data blobs IMO not compatible with p2p cash.

 

[shilch]

BTC became an altcoin with the Segwit "soft"fork. Bitcoin has been maintained with the BCH hardfork, until they fucked up too.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't call the EDA "bitcoin" either.

 

[jessquit]

@shilch your response is also unconstructive.

If what @Zarathustra said is true, explain how one evades a hostile soft fork imposed by a mining majority, like Segwit.

Merely breaking away from the majority means that the "original design" is a minority hardfork altcoin. By definition.

 

[shilch]

"revert to the v0.1 protocol & lock it down"

Why not lock down a protocol? Nobody can harm it if it's immutable.

Also, vision of BSV blockchain as a storage device for arbitrarily large data blobs IMO not compatible with p2p cash.

It's not about storing but distribution: The cool thing about OP_RETURN is that miners must share the transaction containing it (otherwise the block would be invalid), but they can prune it. You can think of a transaction containing an OP_RETURN output as a data packet, and the fee is not for storing it but for propagating it.
This allows building old peer-to-peer ideas with a proper incentive system with incentives for propagating and for storing/providing data rewarding the operator of a p2p node.

 

[Zarathustra]

@zarathuatra you evaded my question. Also, BTC only became an altcoin in your imagination.

No, not in my imagination. By definition. The core design is set in stone. You brake it, you are not Bitcoin anymore.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1393#post-90395

Also, vision of BSV blockchain as a storage device for arbitrarily large data blobs IMO not compatible with p2p cash.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.

 

[Richy_T]

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.

This was on the proviso that those blocks would be invalid by default. If they have to collude to create a new class of invalid block, that becomes a trickier proposition. If you invalidate the block and start work on a different one and everyone else accepts it, you're wasting your hash.
[doublepost=1553978362][/doublepost]

Does anyone have a reason to not like BSV that does not involve CSW?

Nope. Not one bit. I think that a split might have been slightly unnecessary for reasons as suggested by Majamalu but I can see why people would think it was worthwhile and necessary (and when you factor in BCH dev actions, even moreso). However, lay down with the dogs, wake up with the fleas.

Edit: As suggested by satoshis_sockpuppet, the patents may turn into an issue but that's not completely clear to me yet.