Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

If there is no bu developer wanting to develop on bsv, it makes no sense to support it. Bu developers spent their time volontarily for more than three years, and I don't think as a member I can tell them what to do with their time.

Beside this, I really don't understand the habit. Bsv did proof Peter R s orphan theory in the wild and builds on it, while bch rejects it. The very founding moment of bu was that no blocksize limit is needed. Bsv takes this for real, bch doesn't.

But as I said: when bu developers are no longer willing to work on what was the idea of bitcoin unlimited, memberships can't force them to do.

What we could do is to reserve bu funds for other developers to work on the bitcoin unlimited vision.
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
@Christoph Bergmann

Did the thought ever cross your mind, that open source developers might be appalled by nChain and afraid to work on a client/blockchain that is full of parasitic patent bullcrap, closed source, pseudoscience and - most important - lawsuits left and right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader
@satoshis_sockpuppet

Yes, it crossed my mind. To be honest, I have no other idea why bitcoin unlimited, both developers and members, do not instantly unite in support for a chain which absolutely represents the basic idea of bu but instead embrace a crippled version of it which mostly defines by abandoning basis bu theorems.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
what the hell happened to the accuracy of @jessquit claims? I've already proved that disagreements over CTOR were showing up by early summer late spring, at the latest, 2018 via @awemany and others. do facts matter anymore? :

 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
You never read BUIP 063 did you? Dont worry. ill quote it for you

BUIP063: (passed 23:0:0) Support Bitcoin Cash with an official implementation

BUIP 063 clearly outlines official support of Bitcoin Cash via an official second client called BUCash which is why it is the default and the BSV chain is able to be followed via user configuration of BCH HF params.

BUIP 113 would give BSV official support in its own client.

BTC is also officially supported on EQUAL status with BCH within BU right now as stated in BUIP063. We just dont have any developers within the organization who want to dedicate time to working on the BTC client right now. BUIP 115 is what would end support for BTC. It is currently still active
BU devs spend 0 time on the pre-SW client, it simply stands there. BUIP 115 is unnecessary, it makes no practical difference and is only a political statement.

BUIPs 113+114 are equally ill-conceived. they purport to decide democratically an outcome that will only be determined by the market. what if BSV picks up and BCH doesn't? then, with pristine democratic procedure, BU will have voted itself out of relevance.

BU's role is to be on the development forefront of bitcoin. we as a group do not have the agility, the singleness of purpose, or the stomach to be an effective political organization. so, as elected officials have suggested, we need to focus on bitcoin development, not on futile political grandstanding. what does this mean? concretely, it means BUIPs should stick to the following form: allocate x amount of USD to complete development of y project by date z. the projects we decide to fund and our ability to deliver on them determine if we stay relevant as a bitcoin organization. staying relevant means: maneuver ourselves to a position where BU generates revenue to continue funding development that promotes the adoption of bitcoin. we have a treasury, which needs to be used wisely. to ensure we do so, we have a decision-making process and a diverse membership. the rest is useless politicking and time wastage.

@sickpig how's BU's participation in the scaling test network shaping up? is it a project that would benefit from organization funds, and would you recommend so funding it?

are there other projects that BU devs would like to elevate up the priority list with some funding? let's discuss them, here or on separate threads. note that projects that do not require changes in consensus rules will as a matter of fact have a greater chance of being implemented.
 

Griffith

Active Member
Jun 5, 2017
188
157
@79b79aa8 i have a comment directly on 115 that it is only political at this point. it was only made because of a request made by @Jonathan Silverblood which i made note of on that BUIP OP.

BUIPs 113/114 can be reversed by a future BUIP. they also dont prohibit work on a BSV client should it somehow become the dominant coin, it just prohibits publishing of one until a new BUIP is made.

as much as most of us dont want to politic, public perception is important to adoption of any software we publish forcing us to politic at least a little bit. right now we are in a situation where some of the BCH community sees BU as traitors due to BSV support and some of the BSV community sees us as irrelevant in terms of BSV software because we arent nchain even though the current BUCash client outperforms both ABC and nchains BSV client in terms of how much network traffic it can handle safely.

at least with some voting on the matter we will more forward with a clear statement on which coins we currently support development for
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
>and some of the BSV community sees us as irrelevant in terms of BSV software because we arent nchain even though the current BUCash client outperforms both ABC and nchains BSV client in terms of how much network traffic it can handle safely.

this is intellectually dishonest. it's not b/c you're not nchain. it's b/c virtually all of the BU devs and especially it's scientific officer most recently, can't separate personalities vs protocol, and openly bash BSV the coin.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
at least he admits it
[doublepost=1555947687][/doublepost]note how BU-BSV membership didn't come in here or r/btc attacking BU-BCH membership with BUIP's or toxic reddit posts proposing to expel the entire membership or force BU to choose sides. all they've done is openly debate their perceived merits.
[doublepost=1555947864,1555947190][/doublepost]yeah yeah, @Norway made an innocuous statement towards hoping BCH would "split into a million coins" or some such trivial nonsense. who cares? and yeah, i don't condone his doxing of the twitter troll, but he's just one guy.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Yeah, they are obsessed with driving bu away from the only chain that fulfills the vision of bu.

I am really sorry that you don't like central persons of that chain. Bu will have to decide what is more important: the vision bu started with - or to stay away from unpopular people.
Here's where I see BSV having departed sufficiently from the BU Articles of Federation that I don't believe that it meets Satoshi's Vision any more.

"Bitcoin Unlimited adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto's vision for a system that could scale up to a worldwide payment network and a decentralized monetary system."

and

"we acknowledge that Bitcoin is fundamentally a decentralized system and thus we will not assert centralized ownership of the protocol."

Craig Wright, on behalf of nChain, threatened Bitcoin Cash with asserting a patent he claimed to have pending on functionality related to DSV / CDS.

98% of the BSV network (475 nodes) are running nChain's Bitcoin SV software.
Only 1.45% of the nodes are BU, a total of 7. This according to https://sv.coin.dance/nodes .
 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
@Christoph Bergmann As adoption grows on BSV and other businesses take a prominent role in scaling network capacity on top of a stable protocol (because their use cases require it) the anti-CSW position will hold less value because it will become evident that CSW does not really matter. His only real effect was getting it started and setting the direction. (BTW that's identical to Satoshi's involvement in Bitcoin...)

It would be equivalent to Coinbase, Bitpay and other firms being allows to invest in scaling in 2014. In that world the core team who took control of the github repo would not matter, it would be others who continued to build on a stable v0.1 protocol who would move things forward.

The orphan chain from a few days ago shows this, we don't need to argue with those who don't understand bitcoin anymore.

Prior to BSV we'd be dragged into endless arguments with core on the fact that orphans are Bitcoin operating as designed and waste all time and energy on a discussion that went no where. Instead BSV now allows Bitcoin to just work as designed and we can use it as our use case requires.
 

Griffith

Active Member
Jun 5, 2017
188
157
>and some of the BSV community sees us as irrelevant in terms of BSV software because we arent nchain even though the current BUCash client outperforms both ABC and nchains BSV client in terms of how much network traffic it can handle safely.

this is intellectually dishonest. it's not b/c you're not nchain. it's b/c virtually all of the BU devs and especially it's scientific officer most recently, can't separate personalities vs protocol, and openly bash BSV the coin.
the main issue most of us have is with CSW. and its not dishonest i have read this stance before with multiple supporters on the BSV subreddit. the fact that i specifically said "some of the BSV community" not all makes it intellectually honest statement.

'some of the BCH community sees BU as traitors due to BSV support'

core playbook. disgusting. you've become the face of this politicking now to me.
jumping right into assumptions i see. i wasn't talking about myself. i actually have 0 problem with nchain as a company or bsv as a coin. shadders and the other bsv devs have been nothing but kind to me. I would have no issues with supporting bsv if it werent for csw. in fact my only issue with BSV is csw. im sure there are other people share a similar viewpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsdtar and Richy_T

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
"Bitcoin Unlimited adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto's vision for a system that could scale up to a worldwide payment network and a decentralized monetary system."

and

"we acknowledge that Bitcoin is fundamentally a decentralized system and thus we will not assert centralized ownership of the protocol."
The only way to make sure no one can assert centralized ownership of the protocol, is to locking it down. How hard can it be to understand this?
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
the main issue most of us have is with CSW. and its not dishonest i have read this stance before with multiple supporters on the BSV subreddit. the fact that i specifically said "some of the BSV community" not all makes it intellectually honest statement.



jumping right into assumptions i see. i wasn't talking about myself. i actually have 0 problem with nchain as a company or bsv as a coin. shadders and the other bsv devs have been nothing but kind to me. I would have no issues with supporting bsv if it werent for csw. in fact my only issue with BSV is csw. im sure there are other people share a similar viewpoint.
Right. Your viewpoint sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway