Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

It has to be both. It needs the full ecosystem. Bitcoin is inelastic. When it flows from A->B it must also eventually flow from B->A (albeit potentially through C,D and E on the way). Ideally this is through regular commerce since buying B*C with $ defeats the purpose of using crypto. Also make no mistake, the current shitty fiat system work just fine for banks.

 

[rocks]

Cobra is already sowing the seeds of yet another fork.

One avenue to attack Bitcoin and prevent its adoption that was not initially considered is to create instability through a never ending series of forks and changes, which forever prevent a stable platform where real usage has a chance to blossom. As an added bonus, if you could manipulate events so that those individuals who back the most useful/original version of Bitcoin are the ones who have to initiate the forks, then you would be able to marginalize both them and the more useful versions of Bitcoin.

If you look at events through this lens, then the biggest thread to your strategy would be a clearly locked down, stable and scalable version of Bitcoin which provides a stable platform on which to build. It's not surprising then to see the attacks on BSV and CSW.

[doublepost=1554782326][/doublepost]

Hi Cypherdoc… Interesting set of questions.

Firstly we’ve been very vocal about the fact that the original Bitcoin consensus protocol is patent free and will remain so. It’s all been in the public domain for years and so it’s prior art making that a moot point. We’ve also been very vocal about the fact that we intend to deliver software that restores the original Bitcoin protocol and then lock that protocol down in our software implementation. That brings us perfectly into alignment with the set of prior art that was made public 10 years ago. So unless you think we are planning a last second diversion into some bespoke variant of proof of stake or some other nonsense I think this question should be settled by decades of patent case law.

So IF we were to go completely off-the-wall batshit crazy and try to modify the original Bitcoin protocol (the precise opposite of what we’ve put everything on the line to avoid) what is the absolute worst that could happen assuming we were as evil as you can possibly imagine? Well we’ve established the original Bitcoin protocol is patent free. We know the Bitcoin client software up until today is licensed under the MIT open source license, and it’s fairly close to the targeted consensus protocol already. So even if we made the license proprietary tomorrow you could fork today’s version, rewrite backports of any consensus changes we’d made subsequently and be up and running pretty quickly. When you’ve got reference code it’s really not hard to rewrite around licensing. That’s the absolute worst case and it makes some pretty incredible assumptions to get to that case.

As to licensing… I’m not opposed to BSV-only licensing of the client software. What matters though is how you define BSV. It’s clear to me that with a blockchain you can only reliably define it with respect to history (e.g. longest chain that includes block x, post nov 15, 2018), not with respect to the future. There are only two ways I can see to define a license today that specifies future forks of persistent splits: 1) define it by a complete set of protocol rules in which case it’s clear to everyone well in advance and would be tediously long, or 2) insert a discretionary clause i.e. ‘person x decides’, which I would find utterly unacceptable. So any BSV license would be open to all use on Bitcoin SV and to future hard forks or at least it would be very clearly defined what the properties are of a fork it would apply to and that would also preclude the possibility of even us making changes like 63m coin limit. The solution to avoiding future chainsplits is not a legal one, it’s mass proliferation of SPV (real SPV not the variants we have now) and proof of work. If a license were to be devised that made that not the case then the opposing faction could simply fork the code that existed the day before the license came into effect and compete from that point. If necessary taking the time to prep the code for the fork attempt before beginning their campaign with miners.

At the end of the day, anyone can change a license anytime they want and it takes effect from that day forward. I could fork BU or Core code right now and put a proprietary license on all new code I added to it. So no assurance I give you or anyone else will be good enough. People like Freetrader will always assume I am lying. If we do go batshit crazy and raise the coin limit to 63m and there is no one to replace us with an alternative client then that is a failure of the market to perceive the value of keeping the original Bitcoin protocol stable and respond with someone willing to take a capital risk on providing an alternative. If that fails to happen then bitcoin will die. You might have noticed that someone stepped up, committed millions and made this happen once before though. If a defender of the original Bitcoin protocol fails to emerge, I would consider it a complete and utter failure on my part to help build a viable Bitcoin ecosystem. I’m sure there would be many that would feel the same.

Thank you for the clear and excellent explanation on your thoughts here.

 

[lunar]

. . . unless the first wave of users / use cases is different from what many of us BTC-BCH early adopters have assumed.

Crypto needs adoption as cash because wealth has to flow in all directions.

I think you've both fallen into a chicken and egg, regression theorem, loop. - Money has value today because it had value yesterday, and it is expected to have value tomorrow. At some point in the distant past it must have had some other valuable use (marginal utility), or it would never have gained the adoption levels needed to function as money. The leading question is, what gives Bitcoin its marginal utility?

We all want p2p global cash but what gets us there fastest? Core would say the nonsense line 'muh store of value'. That's stupid. It can't be that first, SOV must come much, much later. As a capped digital money without any other utility, is just expensive, mystical, numerology. BCH appears to want adoption to occur at grass roots, coffee shops, and p2p cash outside the reach of governments. For a long time I was convinced this was the path. We were afterall, well on the way. Unfortunately greedy and selfish Blockstream shat on that dream, splintering it into a multicoin, dystopia, with everyone pulling in different directions.

Enter new evidence. Literally. Bitcoin is a legally binding, digital evidence trail. Now every business or coffee shop can legally use it for all their cash, accounting and WORM storage needs. Who knew? A massive mis-info campaign, saw to it that none of us openly considered it. It's not something new, it's just another deep narrative that no one thought to question. Same goes for data limits. The original design has 4 formats (5 with op return) for pushing data onto the chain. OP_PUSHDATA4 can handle 4.29GB or a 40,000 fold increase from BSV today, before we even hit the original design limits.

Knowing this, the BCH path of just focusing solely on use as underground digital cash, is massive under utilisation of resources. Moneys value comes from its utility. When you open a fine 'Bottle' of wine you don't just take a sip and throw the rest down the sink, you savour and use every last drop.

Look out towards the billions who've never used Bitcoin. Drink and share as much as you can my friends, because every serious or trivial use case will drive the adoption of global p2p sound money.

 

[Zarathustra]

It has to be both. It needs the full ecosystem.

That's what @79b79aa8 tries to explain. It has to be both, but one of those both will be first.

 

[rocks]

Now this is interesting, instantly snapshot and time-stamp websites on the blockchain. If someone added a chrome extension I'd be a major user. Considering how much the big tech firms censor posts today it could prove very useful.

Immortalize websites on Bitcoin (BSV)
https://www.bsvdevs.com/index.php?option=com_jvld&Itemid=1650&view=detail&lid=116

 

[Zarathustra]

First We Take Blocks, Then We Take Transaction

https://coin.dance/blocks/transactions/log

 

[lunar]

If someone added a chrome extension I'd be a major user.

Don't think you need it?

Just head to https://immortalsv.com/ drop in a link then view the page on https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/ or https://bico.media/

Sure there's a way to go yet with collating, filing and threading, and perhaps permissioned viewing, but what'dya know, yet another multi million dollar business idea.

Just testing ;-)

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1220b56d7dabebb6c142d630a0a063c1fadff745050c2b9bd498f73414410dc9

 

[cypherdoc]

shit, there's tons of valuable info that disappears when websites get taken down. the Internet Archive only snapshots certain sites and certain pages what maybe once a month if you're lucky?

 

[79b79aa8]

ummm . . . someone cares to explain why garzick thinks ethereum node size shows massive transaction capacity is boneheaded? (see @lunar 's test).

immortalizing webpages is definitely useful. i guess i'll sign up for the money button again. the first time around, a bug swallowed my BCH.

 

[cypherdoc]

unfortunately, Jeff has made two bonehead errors in the past. wanting Ver & Matonis excluded from presscenter.org and more aggregiously acquiescing to the boneheaded 3mo delay of 2MB after SWSF.

 

[79b79aa8]

yea, but i still would like to understand his objection, maybe it has some substance. but i don't follow twitter.

i also would have liked to hear @jessquit 's reasons for thinking that storing data in the blockchain is incompatible with P2P cash.

i want to parse real objections, in order to make better informed financial decisions. not so interested in objections based on the fact that a non-academic behaves in ways not becoming of an academic. that does not tell me much. especially when i know bitcoin could not have come from academia.

 

[lunar]

@79b79aa8

I think it's the same old 'but muhh hobby node can't cope.' He's comparing to ETH thinking the network will be a mesh and each node has to store everything. Basically, another one who can't see that the free market will provide, the weak will die, while others evolve.

[doublepost=1554829148,1554828534][/doublepost]Good thread here, where someone has done some costing.
tl:dr
1GB blocks - If we add everything up, for today's prices, we get $132/mo. (US), $187/mo. (DE) for the second year and $71.92/mo. $78/mo. (US), $115.79/mo.$124/mo. (DE) in 2022.

Unpruned hobby nodes will be fine for several years yet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bafzbe/how_much_would_a_bitcoin_node_handling_1gb_blocks/

 

[79b79aa8]

> I think it's the same old 'but muhh hobby node can't cope.'

thanks @lunar. and i guess that covers @jessquit 's objection as well (not my node = not P2P).

we're good.

i would be feeling bullish, but the fact that splitting coins is a crapshoot spoils my mood.

 

[cypherdoc]

you'd think these guys would notice their own changing narrative. we (BCH) spent about a year from the end of 2017 to end of 2018 pushing SPV nodes, datacenters, and small world networks. suddenly BCH is back to "muh full nodes". Wtf?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

reasons for thinking that storing data in the blockchain is incompatible with P2P cash.

I have an alternative view.
Yellow text in screenshots:

The more inextricably tied to every online action money is, the more money it is.

Looking back, years after Metanet has become the norm, people will look at any new proposed money and ask how it can ever hope to compete with a ledger system that is woven into every single thing anyone does online, every single packet sent.

A commodity ledger is a superset of money, a generalization of the concept of money, and is naturally monolithic: There Can Be Only One.

The ledger that authenticates you when you check on your home security camera remotely, that authenticates your news feed filterer, your Slack messages, your emails, your land title registrations, your home appliances...

"i dont want data storage, i just want peer to peer cash"

The economic plumbing and security underpinning of everything...think anything else will ever be the peer-to-peer cash of the world?

There's an old-world category bias not to see these Metanet transactions as cash uses, but that's exactly what they are. We are conditioned to see Internet actions as free due to the socialistic scaffolding of the Internet we grew up with.

In the hyper-capitalist world of Metanet, no action online is free, because no action online was ever actually free. The cost was just hidden, so negotiation was cumbersome and done in aggregate through proxies. A ridiculously blocky market.

Metanet makes it all fine-grained. The scope of transactions - which again always means "win-win interactions" - explodes. It explodes into categories of transactions that are so unfamiliar that they aren't at first recognized use cases of money, partly because they are microscale.

Being much greater in number, they are inevitably smaller in individual value, but cash uses all the same.

Metanet means everything socialist about the Internet will be made capitalist.

People think too small. Bitcoin was designed not only to become the plumbing for the global economy, but in fact to bring the entire Information Revolution under the purview of economic inventives. To bring everything into the light of market discipline, including governments.

It expands the scope of free-market interaction and efficiency to cover every last link, every last piece of data, every last packet, every last part in every last vehicle and appliance - the entire world of anything that matters made immutable, trackable, verifiable, searchable - with search and curation itself made rational for the first time by weaving economics into the very fabric of the Internet.

This is the 4th industrial revolution, a bigger change than any of the previous ones. Take what the division of labor did for the global standard of living and square it. Bitcoin is capitalism in code form, and Metanet is the ultimate permeation of capitalism into every last useful piece of the world with all the efficiencies and opportunities that represents.

 

[Norway]

you'd think these guys would notice their own changing narrative. we (BCH) spent about a year from the end of 2017 to end of 2018 pushing SPV nodes, datacenters, and small world networks. suddenly BCH is back to "muh full nodes". Wtf?

BCH is also going "muh peer-to-peer digital cash" just like BTC goes "muh store of value".

Having bitcoin integrated in my daily economy more than most people, I'd say that's just two sides of the same coin. I try to save up some money (HODL), but I also have to pay bills and buy shit (SPENDL).

Currently, neither BSV, BCH or BTC are very good for store of value or medium of exchange or data storage for different reasons. But the bitcoin haters will come up with this narrative:

You have to choose between:
Store of value
Store of information
Medium of exchange

(BSV is obviously going for all 3, the altcoins are going for 1 of 3).

AFAIK, the narrative in BCH is now to focus on bitcoin as cash. Key word: Focus.

They have limited resources (I think this is very true after Bitmain sacked the Wormhole team) and they have to put all the effort into converting all these coffee shops into accepting BCH for payment. (My company is going for the same goal with KaChing and BSV, but we are not going from coffee shop to coffee shop. And it's a long term goal. We have more short term strategies too).

I think Bitcoin.com have a very interesting concept with the upcoming oracle service based on DSV. But I have to repeat myself: This can be done without DSV on BSV. It's very easy, and it doesn't require huge scripts. But credit where credit is due, Roger Ver. This service is different from "Muh cash". And the SLP token and wallet solution has a head start compared to Tokenized. This will be a very interesting battle to watch, and my company will be a part of that battle. Token system war

@Zangelbert Bingledack
I was going to comment on parts of your post above. But your whole post is so amazing. Every sentence. I can't pick the good cherrys from a tree where all the cherrys are good.

 

[rocks]

Bitcoin is a legally binding, digital evidence trail. Now every business or coffee shop can legally use it for all their cash, accounting and WORM storage needs. Who knew? A massive mis-info campaign, saw to it that none of us openly considered it. It's not something new, it's just another deep narrative that no one thought to question. Same goes for data limits. The original design has 4 formats (5 with op return) for pushing data onto the chain. OP_PUSHDATA4 can handle 4.29GB or a 40,000 fold increase from BSV today, before we even hit the original design limits.

Knowing this, the BCH path of just focusing solely on use as underground digital cash, is massive under utilisation of resources. Moneys value comes from its utility. When you open a fine 'Bottle' of wine you don't just take a sip and throw the rest down the sink, you savour and use every last drop.

This line of thinking is mind blowing to me, I definitely did not think this far and do not remember any discussion on this in the old BCT thread. An organization could post all transactions and activities on chain, down to the tiniest fine grained detail, then hit a button and out comes their quarterly reports and IRS estimate with zero audit risk. Amazing thought process.

It makes you realize the first attack on Bitcoin was not the censorship and blocksize limitation, it was the removal of the script language by only allowing "standard" transactions. This was one of the very first limitations put on Bitcoin and in retrospect did the most to limit development. The arguments to remove script and "non-standard" transactions never made sense to me, yes unbounded script would break nodes, but the right answer was to put a box on resources allowed (such as max stack size, etc) not to remove it entirely.

Reading CSW's posts over the past few years you can see him discussion this, but doing so indirectly.

 

[Zarathustra]

Full Norway in Thailand ...

 

[Richy_T]

Those looking at data storage on the blockchain (which I am not necessarily against), how would you answer the fact that data storage is not incentivized, only generating new blocks is?

 

[Otaci]

Storage is not incentivized yet.

It's not difficult to store the entire blockchain and there are plenty of entities that provide it for free, so there's no opportunities for creating a market. When it becomes costly to provide this service, then it creates opportunities for entrepeneurs to build the mechanisms from which they can profit.