Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[shadders]

I don't see though how you arrive at "All those "CTOR-exclusive" propagation benefits would still be possible with TTOR."

The prime motivation for CTOR seems to be to exclude ordering information from being necessary on the network. Hence its use in Graphene now. Those present benefits would be reduced by TTOR-only.

You can avoid transmission of ordering info by just flagging your deterministic ordering scheme to the receiver. They can do the sort of their mempool on their side to determine order. Then just iterate and test for set membership. Any ordering scheme can be used so long as both sides are aware of it, even ones that are topologically constrained. So no it does not have to be part of consensus to gain this benefit.

I'm still not a fan of graphene though as the state tracking required at terablock scale is horrendous.

 

[cypherdoc]

as long as we're trying to hold people accountable around here, how about holding the small blockists, like @freetrader & @jtoomim et al, who told us BSV could never accomplish all the things they're accomplishing everyday now; like blocks way bigger than the 22mb ATMP that was said to be a network limit, or that any blocks ~32mb would be way too big for the network to handle in terms of shutting down nodes, increasing miner centralization, or dreaded increases in block intervals immediately preceding or following the release of such big blocks. and just where are the poison and spam blocks they said would occur? nowhere to be seen. and what's with these already proven to be absurd concepts like "muh full node". these guys sound like core all over again.

personally, I find these predictive errors around BSV's strategy to be much more reprehensible, let alone appalling and economically ignorant, than any lies CSW may have made which have trivial implications.

 

[shadders]

@shadders Is this the case in the Bitcoin SV protocol?


EDIT: Oh, I see you corrected yourself:

I think you mean disambiguated. Sorry to disappoint. You could have gotten a great tweet out of that
[doublepost=1554621523][/doublepost]

i'm disappointed @shadders & @Otaci have avoided this question. i think it remains a valid concern:

It is not in ours or anyone's interests to patent anything in the base protocol so answer is no. I very much doubt the case you are describing 'mechanism for sunsetting p2sh' would be patentable anyway. Even if there was I fail to see any commercial value in it.
[doublepost=1554621685,1554621083][/doublepost]

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.

Probably because busy. I don't have time to read everything here. Out of the 1400 pages I've probably missed about 80% of them

 

[Otaci]

I saw the question, but wanted a nap.

 

[shadders]

Has CSW ever publicly presented this as an argument for evading a public signing?
Because if that was the consideration, it would have been straightforward to present it as a reason.
He would've given those whose integrity he cast into doubt by his failure an immediate cover.
.

He's said something quite similar in a medium post. Sometime this year. Not sure exactly which one. And alluded to it several times over the years. Again, can't point you to specific instances because I don't want to spend half a day searching but I've been aware of his notion of "I don't owe you a signature, you've got nothing to offer me for it that I want" for a long time.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Does csw being Satoshi raise questions? Yes. Why are there faked evidences, for example.

Does csw being not Satoshi raise questions? Yes, for example how did he make Gavin believe despite Gavin having unpublished emails with Satoshi?

Anybody without deep and non public knowledge - like Gavin or Ian Grigg - saying he KNOWS the truth can not be trusted, since his thought process starts with knowing instead of not knowing, which devaluates everything he concludes.

So the most rational strategy is to rely on the conclusions of those who start with a question instead of an answer or those who have hidden knowledge, like having seen unpublished documents or a signature ceremony.

 

[freetrader]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/badgq0/dr_wright_declined_to_answer_certain_questions/

"Dr. Wright declined to answer certain questions based on alleged national security concerns. The Court deferred ruling on this issue to allow the parties to brief the issue, including providing evidence that the United States Government joins in the national security objection."

https://www.scribd.com/document/405108387/Faketoshi-Deposition-Order

 

[freetrader]

Does csw being Satoshi raise questions? Yes. Why are there faked evidences, for example.

Does csw being not Satoshi raise questions? Yes, for example how did he make Gavin believe despite Gavin having unpublished emails with Satoshi?

Anybody without deep and non public knowledge - like Gavin or Ian Grigg - saying he KNOWS the truth can not be trusted, since his thought process starts with knowing instead of not knowing, which devaluates everything he concludes.

So the most rational strategy is to rely on the conclusions of those who start with a question instead of an answer or those who have hidden knowledge, like having seen unpublished documents or a signature ceremony.

+1

 

[Zarathustra]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/badgq0/dr_wright_declined_to_answer_certain_questions/

https://www.scribd.com/document/405108387/Faketoshi-Deposition-Order

LOL @jessquit

Who here needs any additional evidence that Craig Wright is a five eyes operative being funded to destroy big block Bitcoin? I don't.

The former jessquit:

Thomas Edison was a scammer. You know that, right? He made up vaporware shit that didn't work and sold it to investors to get their money for other ideas and to make sure they didn't invest in his competition. The guy was pretty ruthless.

Deciding not to listen to everything Thomas Edison said because sometimes he tried to enrich himself selling people some bad ideas that didn't work would still be a terrible decision on your part, because some of the other things Edison was selling were pure genius that you'd completely write off, or worse, argue against without understanding.

Have a nice day.


Religion - a system that works!

"Anybody without deep and non public knowledge - like Gavin or Ian Grigg - saying he KNOWS the truth can not be trusted, since his thought process starts with knowing instead of not knowing, which devaluates everything he concludes." Christoph Bergmann

 

[freetrader]

Zarathustra - you're missing the point, the whole point and nothing but the point

 

[cypherdoc]

and here we thought you didn't have the time to devote to ABC dev out of "other interests". what could those possibly be since you spend all day everyday here defending ABC and tearing down CSW and BSV? it's getting amusing.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It is accumulating data points, it is resolving the real CSW

This is so cute. Every person who is against Craig Wright thinks they're "accumulating data" and resolving to some full picture of the man by browsing r/btc and whatever other little bits filter through the masses of gawkers who want to nitpick and faultfind rather than actually seeking out and reading the man in detail. You think you've seen a lot of him already? You haven't, and I know you haven't because...

I can name a reason why the real Satoshi would not insta-dump a chain even if he disagrees with it completely.

But can you tell me (the plural "you" - any of you SV fans can ask him for me) what CSW's excuse is?

Yet AFAIK years went by and we never heard such reasoning from him.

...you didn't do the work. You don't care to. There's no way you'd be asking this or most other questions if you had followed his Twitter feed (now removed), Slack, or Medium posts. Yet you are content to throw pot shots and feign some kind of interest in a full picture, when it couldn't be more obvious this is based on the shallowest of impressions you allowed to be made on you by people specializing in finding the odd "damning" statement by a man who makes a huge number of statements that are often open to misinterpretation and generally has set up his life in a very complicated way. A little investigation would reveal many things he has said that sounded ridiculous initially but turned out to be true, even insightful, even crucial.

I think the bashers know deep down this isn't the process they would use to evaluate anyone else who mattered this much to the space, but rather justify it by telling themselves he doesn't deserve any real effort since, "After all he's the guy who had the nerve to claim he was Satoshi and then not prove it."

To ignore the issue because of that is rational. It's a ton of work after all. But to draw a conclusion without investigating (and no, reading reddit, BCH twitterers and Cult of Craig is not investigating) because "he doesn't deserve serious investigation" is just a circular argument.

Proof of work, my friends. Why should I invest time refuting misconceptions when those attacking make clear they've jumped to conclusions without doing anywhere near a sufficient amount of research?

 

[freetrader]

and here we thought you didn't have the time to devote to ABC dev out of "other interests". what could those possibly be since you spend all day everyday here defending ABC and tearing down CSW and BSV? it's getting amusing.

If I spend time, it is to defend Bitcoin Cash, not ABC in particular.
Anyone reading my posting history here or elsewhere can verify that.
Try again.
[doublepost=1554645285][/doublepost]

There's no way you'd be asking this or most other questions if you had followed his Twitter feed (now removed), Slack, or Medium posts.

I was actually in a slack where he was, once upon a time, I read his Twitter and some of his Medium posts and papers (until I was sick of the pseudoscience).
So thanks, had my fill of his bullshit.

Proof of work, my friends.

Time will tell if Craig and friends understand what that even means.

 

[cypherdoc]

being a dev, and not just any dev but the one who forked abc, you'd think @freetrader would be bashing BSV from a technical standpoint on a daily basis. yet we hear virtually nothing from him about all the technical achievements BSV has pulled off recently that should have an honest thorough technical investigator who believes in big block scaling jumping for joy. I'll extend this line of reasoning to the BU devs too.

Please feel free to contribute to the historic achievements of BSV in just this past month alone that I might have missed so that we can get this thread back on track to evaluating technical and economic merits, not personal bashings:

1. a boatload (lost count) of historic blocks way larger than ABC's 32mb limit not only on Testnet but main net.
2. a stress test of 128mb blocks fully sustained for 36h on Testnet
3. blocks between 51-128mb filled with "organic tx's" (from non mining node mempools) propagated directly on main net without delays both pre and post release:

4.no significant orphaning seen as a result of these huge blocks
5. ATMP limits not a factor in BSV tx's propagation nor validation.
6. Money Button, an organic market generated UX initiative to facilitate the uploading of huge files almost seamlessly that gets around the UTXO limits.
7. Bitstagram, an Instagram alternative that is improving daily
8. not a peep of double spending on the BSV network. sure, there aren't too many merchants yet but still.
8. the boatload of unwriter tools that I haven't even begun to understand yet intuit that they will have great implications later in the game
9. a new blockchain based browser

obviously I've missed several other projects that are in the work, to them I apologize.
[doublepost=1554645831][/doublepost]@freetrader

there you go again, using a strawman response. "if you spend time" is clearly not even in question, lol. given the amount of time here you spend trolling CSW, you could have coded up a new client by now

 

[sgbett]

"After all he's the guy who had the nerve to claim he was Satoshi and then not prove it."

Thats the rub. Jealousy. Bitterness. Fragile Egos. Self loathing. Just a few character traits observable in many of the talking heads. Lest I be accused of hasty generalisation, I am not saying anyone here is guilty of those things. However, it is really down to the non-believers to demonstrate good faith. The only proof I accept in that regard is signed keys

This is of course a joke, because that would be inverse fallacy. That is, to demand proof and when none is given to automatically conclude that this in itself was in fact disproof.

Nobody here would be that foolish. I am sure of that. Schoolboy logic.

I must apologise to everyone for derailing the thread a bit with my ranting, I am prone to the odd outburst from time to time - it's my emotions, I have them, and sometimes they influence my behaviour.

I is not easy it is to admit that, but I think it is important to. I think that is also important to consider how, in the eyes of a rational observer, I am not weak for doing so. If as an observer you think this is weak, then self-reflection is advised. Know yourself, for you are your own worst enemy.

 

[shadders]

This is so cute. Every person who is against Craig Wright thinks they're "accumulating data" and resolving to some full picture of the man by browsing r/btc and whatever other little bits filter through the masses of gawkers who want to nitpick and faultfind rather than actually seeking out and reading the man in detail. You think you've seen a lot of him already? You haven't, and I know you haven't because...


...you didn't do the work. You don't care to. There's no way you'd be asking this or most other questions if you had followed his Twitter feed (now removed), Slack, or Medium posts. Yet you are content to throw pot shots and feign some kind of interest in a full picture, when it couldn't be more obvious this is based on the shallowest of impressions you allowed to be made on you by people specializing in finding the odd "damning" statement by a man who makes a huge number of statements that are often open to misinterpretation and generally has set up his life in a very complicated way. A little investigation would reveal many things he has said that sounded ridiculous initially but turned out to be true, even insightful, even crucial.

I think the bashers know deep down this isn't the process they would use to evaluate anyone else who mattered this much to the space, but rather justify it by telling themselves he doesn't deserve any real effort since, "After all he's the guy who had the nerve to claim he was Satoshi and then not prove it."

To ignore the issue because of that is rational. It's a ton of work after all. But to draw a conclusion without investigating (and no, reading reddit, BCH twitterers and Cult of Craig is not investigating) because "he doesn't deserve serious investigation" is just a circular argument.

Proof of work, my friends. Why should I invest time refuting misconceptions when those attacking make clear they've jumped to conclusions without doing anywhere near a sufficient amount of research?

Never have I ever...

Heard this articulated so well...
[doublepost=1554652768][/doublepost]

being a dev, and not just any dev but the one who forked abc, you'd think @freetrader would be bashing BSV from a technical standpoint on a daily basis

I would welcome this... I'd be far more inclined to respond amicably if the critique is about the actual code now or what's planned rather than veiled or overt reference to craigisms.

 

[cypherdoc]

@shadders @Otaci, would you go on record agreeing with the statement/concept that BSV is MIT (not BSV open source) based open source code and that if nchain or its github owners try to force through something highly controversial, like increasing the 21M coin limit to say 63M, an alternative hard fork implementation of BSV should be free to be created by outside devs without undue threat of a lawsuit? ideally I'd also like to hear you say that BSV would also never try patenting anything into the BSV source code. I'm just talking generally and certainly don't want to make you uncomfortable, but I want to be clear here.

btw, I don't think nchain or its devs would sue like this as it's not in their economic interests to do so. but since there are patents and lawsuits being demonstrated, I'd just like to clarify this since I believe free hard forking is the only option to hold rogue implementations accountable. yes, I'm aware that "just don't upgrade" to a 63M coin chain is possible but I'm assuming there could be less controversial things that creep into the code that might also need to be reversed via a hard fork (like is being done with p2sh in BSV).

Also, I would never support a hard fork away from BSV unless it did something aggregious, like reinstituting a block cap after removing it or increasing coin limits, etc. Any more hard forks are just dilutional/inflationary if they're not justified fundamentally (unlike what ABC is doing q6mo).

 

[Otaci]

@cypherdoc That is a well written question with some great points.

 

[cypherdoc]

thank you but I'd prefer an answer.

btw, an open commitment to the principles I've outlined above is probably the last sticking point that many investors who understand fundamentally what Bitcoin and BSV is trying to do are looking to clear up. you may think it goes without saying but how many times have we been burned?

 

[Otaci]

Our strategy with regards to patents and other forms of IP is explained by Jimmy in this video:
We are discussing the copyright of Bitcoin SV at the moment and, while this has not been finalized yet, we are considering the Open BSV license. This license is compatible with the concerns you have listed.

With regard to patents, as Jimmy very explicitly states in that video, there is no desire or intent to attempt applying for patents on the original Bitcoin specification, which is exactly what we are returning to with Bitcoin SV.
[doublepost=1554666055][/doublepost]

thank you but I'd prefer an answer.

Yes, what I meant with that post was that although I may take time out for a nap, I would respond
[doublepost=1554666129][/doublepost]OK, I was trying to be funny, probably didnt come over well. Your question was complex enough that I wanted to take my time for an answer.