Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

attila

Member
Mar 27, 2019
53
116
TTOR only orders transactions that depend on each other, and the vast majority of transactions do not depend on other transactions in the same block, but on transactions in prior blocks.
TTOR is (partial) chronological ordering. The only requirement for being considered chronological in spacetime is that causality is not violated. Since we cannot refer to "outside" time (because that time can be forged) we must take the causal ordering as the only means of obtaining any kind of chronological ordering.

The Bitcoin system is a distributed timestamp server - one cannot appeal to "outside" or "true" time. There is no such thing and it is not mathematical sound and in fact a contradiction. (See Special and General Relativity).

The only possible mechanism to achieve finer time-stamp ordering is to do so by extending POW mining to include some form of sub blocks/weak blocks.
False.

If you send so many chained transactions in a row that the Planck Time is reached then the transactions represent arbitrary time precision.

This would require block sizes that are extremely large. But you said "only" and that is all that is required to show your absolute statement to be false.

Another angle to tackle your statement is this:

What is the meaning of "finer time-stamp" and why is it important? Once you answer this question you will see the the blocks and the transactions within them are chronologically ordered for all purposes where a computational proof of chronology matters.
[doublepost=1554391789][/doublepost]
As stated before, this is the reason CTOR should not have been done in Nov. The problem is the way it was rolled out, not that it broke Bitcoin's consensus rules (it didn't)
It didn't break Bitcoin's consensus rules anymore than if you forked the TCP protocol today and it "broke TCP protocol".

Of course Bitcoin's rules didn't change -- BCH team created a competing altcoin with different invalid rules and cloned the ledger.

Bitcoin continues just fine...
 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
There are so many things wrong with what's above it's not worth bothering. You should spend some time reading the old thread on bct where POW was discussed extensively. POW is the mechanism which connects Bitcoin to the real world, if you wish to create ordering at a finer granularity than the current block granularity it needs to be done by modifying POW to checkpoint at finer grained intervals.

This is more interesting
 

attila

Member
Mar 27, 2019
53
116
@rocks

"There are so many things wrong with what's above it's not worth bothering"

Not an argument.

But if there are so many things wrong with the arguments, then it should be easy to use reason and evidence to reject just one of the arguments.

Maybe a 1 BCH bounty is "worth it" for someone to create an algorithm for obtaining a chronological ordering in BCH:

 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
a- @Richy_T showed that in past blocks the correlation between txns order in a block and time of arrival in a miner memepool is close to 0.
Yes. @Richy_T also showed that fee ordering was introduced before this block in v0.18.0rc3, before the data he collected.

EDIT:
Source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c555400ca134991e39d5e3a565fcd2215abe56f6

AFAIK, nChain is going to restore the order back to append only because this order has value to the users. It's not a consensus rule, but I assume miners want to deliver a valuable product to their customers when they understand this.

b- There's no timestamp field in the data structure used to store transaction data. (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction)
Yes, nobody is claiming that. The order itself can be a ledger of events as they are seen from a miner's "inertial frame of reference". (Miners will see the order a bit different, but it's still a lot better than 10 minute granularity.)

c- Txn time of arrival could be in conflict with the actual topological ordering (this could happen quite frequently)
What is actual topological ordering? This is what the special theory of relativity-discussions was about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zarathustra

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@RollieMe
I appreciate the perspective from an accountant. What do you think about this scenario:

The board call for a meeting with the CEO. There have been a large sum of money going to and from the company account. The CEO is the only person that can sign transactions on behalf of the company, and the two transactions happened in the same block.

"What happened?", ask the chairman.
"Oh, nothing important. I just sent money to the company account by mistake and retrived them.", answer the CEO.

With BCH, the board has to accept this, they have no indication that anything else happened.

What really happened, was that the CEO was drowning in debt by coke, hookers and gambling. In a desperate move, he borrowed money from the company, placed a large bet on an online casino, won(!) and paid the company back just in time before a new block was found.

Assuming bitcoin is unfucked and miners see the value of ordering transactions in blocks as they arrive, the CEO would not get away with these shenanigans on BSV.
 

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Just saying there is still a problem.


[doublepost=1553826950][/doublepost]If block explorers can't stay up during this testing on the operational system, then what will happen to ordinary businesses. Yay unscheduled service interruptions.

Expansion of capacity in this way doesn't seem a stable approach to operating a financial system that needs to be reliable. Make noise about "locking down the protocol" all you want.
You typed the wrong url.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
i'm disappointed @shadders & @Otaci have avoided this question. i think it remains a valid concern:

i'd actually like an answer to my question as it regards this post by @Manfred :



to clarify, THE working assumption behind me being willing to back the BSV fiery inferno (Aussie Man Bad) chain is that if and when BSV reaches it's more or less finality of development of unlimited blocks seamlessly propagating and validating across it's network with billions of users and a price in the $hundredsofthousands, the BSV community would/should still have the optionality of hard forking away from the Aussie Man Bad's chain if he tries some non-sensical move like increasing the 21M coin limit or stealing old Satoshi's coins (assuming CSW isn't Satoshi). so is it true that nChain or CSW has some sort of generalized patent on the entire BSV chain itself and it's "technology" that would allow them to sue any open source devs who author such a breakaway fork? for me, that would be bad, as i consider all the development taking place btwn now and then that restores Bitcoin's original vision to be open source. mind you, given that i think there's a ~75% chance he was part of the Satoshi group, i don't think he'd do this, but who knows. one always should assume the worst can happen and have appropriate checks in place.

for instance, clearly the unwinding of p2sh and other Core insertions into the BTC-->BCH-->BSV code is complicated according to @Zangelbert Bingledack's post the other day. if nChain writes the additional required code to accomplish this unwind, are they going to patent it, making any usage of the generalized BSV code from then on forward for all practical purposes also protected by that patent? let's say they accomplish that by end of 2019 and by 2025 when BSV is much bigger, a breakaway hard fork is open sourced due to a threatened non-sensical 21M coin increase. can/would they sue those authors? also, if they expect non-nChain devs to help out due to the complexity, i would think this would place this is the category of open source.

@shadders @Otaci
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
then why didn't @shadders or @Otaci come out and address my edge case where p2sh related unwinding code could be patented which might make hard forking away from nchain's code base impractical in the far future? Jimmy's statement was more of a generalization. i'd like to get a statement from nchain stating that any code they may have to write that restores the protocol back to it's original state and involves removing the limit or optimizing propagation or validation is off limits to patenting. IOW, open source.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: witly

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
oh bro
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@cypherdoc You mean patent a technique for sunsetting P2SH? I think that question may be taken as out of left field as I don't expect anything like that is patentable (you can't patent sunsetting; at best a novel technique for sunsetting). Sunsetting is more a PR issue than an invention anyway. I'd be really surprised if that kind of discussion has even come up at nChain, but I'll let @Otaci and @shadders answer.

On the other hand, techniques for optimizing propagation and validation are liable to be patented by any miner as then we are talking non-consensus code in BSV (since 0.1 consensus rules constitute a protocol that is prior art and cannot be patented). It would be interesting to hear what nChain's view on that is, but it doesn't seem where their focus is. Even if that were to change, I'm not sure it's scarier for nChain to pursue that than any other miner.

Companies patenting everything that helps them is the norm in all industries except crypto (including the Internet itself), but we can't expect that exception to survive the move to professionalization; it soon turns into patent or be beaten to the punch by Mastercard, etc. However, I understand your line of questioning is about goodwill, and besides whatever answers nChain gives it should be more instructive to see what their ~700 patent applications so far cover. The ones I have seen are not of that sort in any way.
 
Last edited: