Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

Everyone can see that I didn't suggest to exlude existing members like you said. You're making a fool of yourself with your lies.

Here is the quote from my post which you cited as evidence:

"If you want BU to exclude anonymous members then you'll have to get a BUIP passed to amend the Articles."

Where in there do I write "existing"?

I've lost faith in your reading abilities, @Norway. Sun already too low in the Northern forests?

However, I've also lost faith in the reading abilities of KoKansei, Christoph and Zarathustra who liked your post which claims I lied. Maybe they would like to show me where I mentioned "existing", or I'll have to infer that they like Norway's lies.
[doublepost=1554136067][/doublepost]

The really suspicous thing with freetrader is that he acts completely calm. He is not angry, he does not doubt, he does not reason to arguments, he has zero gray zone, and is absolutely consequent in his manoevres. From a user which spreads so much hate and disgust against a certain project, you would expect him to be full of anger and bitterness, like todu on reddit or the gallore of (volontary) core trolls. But he just seems to straightly do his duty.

Thanks for that, I consider it a true complement.
In a previous job (nothing to do with Bitcoin) I had the displeasure of working with an amoral, narcissistic psychopath.
It helps to immunize.

 

[Norway]

It absolutely does not. The only timestamp in a block is on the block itself. Other than that dependent transactions are required to be in order of fulfilment, there is no requirement on the order with TTOR either (as implemented in BTC).

You still don't see the point in this tweet?

 

[Richy_T]

It was an april fool's prank. Cheer up

Ah. Ya got me.
[doublepost=1554137685][/doublepost]

There is no such thing as property in a pre-civilized (collectivized) environment.
Seems you are not familiar with the difference of possession and property.

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

If you're going to go dancing off into weirdo political theories, I fail to see what your original point is. I thought you were using words the same way as everyone else here. My mistake.

 

[Norway]

"If you want BU to exclude anonymous members then you'll have to get a BUIP passed to amend the Articles."

I don't want to exclude anonymous members. I suggest that members are very conservative when evaluating anonymous people applying for membership.

Where in there do I write "existing"?

You don't use that word. You are still saying "exclude anonymous members".

I've lost faith in your reading abilities, @Norway. Sun already too low in the Northern forests?

Worst insult ever! Can't you do better than that?

 

[freetrader]

Everyone can see that I didn't suggest to exlude existing members like you said. You're making a fool of yourself with your lies.

You can't gaslight me. Where did I say that you suggested to exclude existing members?

Worst insult ever! Can't you do better than that?

I'd call you a troll but you don't rise up to the level.

 

[Norway]

You said that I suggested to exlude existing members. I didn't quote you. There's a difference in refering the meaning in a statement (paraphrasing) and quoting it.

I think your twisted nitpicking is very boring to most people in this thread.

I'd call you a troll but you don't rise up to the level.

You seriously have to work on your insults.

 

[Richy_T]

So, TTOR...

I decided to take a look at a fairly arbitrarily chosen block 300,000 (I wanted to go with block 115,000 for obvious reasons but turns out it was uninteresting). This is in a nice range where fees have started to apply but blocks are still far from full and also, blockchain.info have data for received time on transactions (though it should be noted that this will not necessarily agree with the times miners saw them, it should be representative). It is also before the fork.

I ran through the transactions in the block, in order and requested the fee in sat/B and the received time from blockchain.info (it should be noted that this last information is not in any way recorded in the blockchain). I then output the txid, the fee info and the date&time in processed order. The TXID was shortened for readability but is still verifiable from the block itself.

https://pastebin.com/6r8nv4cc

What can be seen is that the order in the block, while not a totally monotonic for either fees or received time, does bear a strong correlation with decreasing fees wheras the received times are all over the place, apparently having no, or very little correlation to block position at all*.

So, the conclusion, as it appears to me, is that TTOR provides no useful or usable information in the general case at all and has benefits for implementation specific optimizations only.

*This is clear to me but if anyone would like this shown as a graph, I would be happy to supply.

If anyone thinks this block is not representative, I'm happy to run the same deal on any other block. Though some of the early ones are not suitable for various reasons.
[doublepost=1554139645][/doublepost]Note there may be some age priority stuff going on there. This block is from before that stuff was removed.

 

[freetrader]

You said that I suggested to exlude existing members. I didn't quote you.

[...]

I think your twisted nitpicking is very boring to most people in this thread.

I said that (bold part) where?

I'll gladly admit I said it if indeed I said it. So some forth with a link.
[doublepost=1554140003][/doublepost]

What can be seen is that the order in the block, while not a totally monotonic for either fees or received time, does bear a strong correlation with decreasing fees wheras the received times are all over the place, apparently having no, or very little correlation to block position at all*.

Great line of inquiry, @Richy_T .

I'd like to see something like that analyzed for a regular post-split block in BSV. (one filled with organically propagated transactions)

 

[shilch]

So, the conclusion, as it appears to me, is that TTOR provides no useful or usable information in the general case at all and has benefits for implementation specific optimizations only.

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

 

[Norway]

You said that I suggested to exlude existing members.

I said that (bold part) where?

... you want BU to exclude anonymous members ...

I hope this loop is complete now

 

[Richy_T]

__

Your point? This block has already been accepted into the blockchain and is historical for all Bitcoin*. Probably for more POW than had even been applied to the chain up to that point.

 

[freetrader]

I hope this loop is complete now

No, the loop is not complete now, merely a short-circuit has taken place in your brain, resulting in faulty logic on your part and calling me a liar.

I won't call you a liar, because I think it's unwarranted since you clearly simply don't understand the point.
No, what's happening here is some kind of physiological or psychological process gone awry.

 

[Richy_T]

I'd like to see something like that analyzed for a regular post-split block in BSV. (one filled with organically propagated transactions)

That might be more satisfactory as it would be possible to directly record information about transactions and maybe even dig a little deeper on that ephemeral data.

My bet is the prioritization code is still there. but I haven't been following what they've been up to too closely.

 

[Norway]

@Richy_T
Interesting approach. Which chain are you looking at?

 

[Richy_T]

@Richy_T
Interesting approach. Which chain are you looking at?

BTC. But it's historical for all 3+ chains.

 

[Norway]

@Richy_T
Please forgive me for being lazy. What point in time are we talking about?

 

[freetrader]

That might be more satisfactory as it would be possible to directly record information about transactions and maybe even dig a little deeper on that ephemeral data.

My bet is the prioritization code is still there. but I haven't been following what they've been up to too closely.

A quick search through the public Bitcoin SV commits and I saw no changes related to this.
So I would expect their blocks to exhibit similar pattern to what you found.

 

[Norway]

Learn, hate or disagree. It's up to you.

 

[Richy_T]

@Richy_T
Please forgive me for being lazy. What point in time are we talking about?

May 2014.

 

[Norway]

@Richy_T
Thanks.

I think SHA256 miners need to understand their potential income. Today, they are flying blind. It's hard to blame them with the current chaos of information.

Keeping a sub 10 minute ledger is a part of the job if they are profit seeking long term.