Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Griffith I agree with cypherdoc: your viewpoint sucks. You basically give up on the vision of bu because a single person....

A single person who was able to recruit developers who have been nothing but kind to you ... While abc... Recruits devs and social media warriors who see it as their mission to publicay throw as much mud on your team as possible.
[doublepost=1555954322][/doublepost]@rocks i am not as optimistic as you. The no2x triumph demonstrated what 'business' are: bitches of social media trolls.

An example: someone from the media industry wants to start a micropayment service with me. We have nice plans, very nice plans. They only work with bsv, for several reasons. But he doesn't want to work with bsv, because csw, and prefers bch, even as it means we have to kick half of our best ideas.
[doublepost=1555954485][/doublepost]And ... There are not much arguments I can make. You have bad chances to onboard newspapers if a simple Google search gives a million result that your product is run by a scammer. This stupid bullshit ad hominem clusterfucking works.

 

[rocks]

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.

In the early days for Bitcoin it was widely acknowledged that Bitcoin was defined by math and it's code alone and nothing else mattered, not even Satoshi. Many arguments against Bitcoin were along the lines of "how can you trust the founder" or "how do you know Satoshi won't steal your coins", and a large part of the general education effort was on how Bitcoin is math and operates outside of Satoshi's or anyone else's control.

There was always the possibility that Satoshi would come out and turn out to be a horrible person or criminal, but the prevailing view was that didn't matter because no one, not even Satoshi could effect Bitcoin, it was math and operated outside of external influence.

Tell me, what is different today from that worldview? If Satoshi did not matter in regards to Bitcoin's operation or success, why does CSW matter for BSV? To say that CSV the fallible human can negatively effect BSV, is to say that there is some fallible Satoshi out there who could appear and negatively effect BTC/BCH. Neither are the case.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Nobody with a brain said "Bitcoin is math".
That was a stupid sentence then and it is a stupid sentence now.

It's a easy escape for avoiding the discussion who controls it. Bitcoin core trolls liked to use it to deny the power of the core developers.
Because, how could Blockstream control the core devs and with it Bitcoin if bitcoin was "math"...

 

[rocks]

@satoshis_sockpuppet Go back to the original GCBU thread or /r/bitcoin archives circa 2011-13, that was the prevailing view promoted by just about everyone involved including those who later became core devs. You are trying to rewrite history with that comment.

The problem as I stated in earlier postings is Bitcoin lacked critical mass sufficient to keep the protocol on auto pilot, this allowed groups to take over and change the protocol as they saw fit. Bitcoin needs an incubation period till it reaches critical mass. When satoshi left he trusted that incubation period to others and we saw what happened. I doubt the same mistake will happen with BSV (that is not a statement that CSW is Satoshi, just that CSW & Shadders likely have learned from recent history).
[doublepost=1555957169][/doublepost]

@rocks i am not as optimistic as you. The no2x triumph demonstrated what 'business' are: bitches of social media trolls.

Fair enough. The way I see it though is core's bounding of the protocol enabled inferior entities to have influence and set direction. With an unbounded protocol more capable business would be able to move forward and win in the market place.

Why do you think miners invested zero effort in scaling efforts or coding? It's because they didn't have to in order to compete. With an unbounded protocol that would no longer be the case.

 

[cypherdoc]

Nobody with a brain said "Bitcoin is math".
That was a stupid sentence then and it is a stupid sentence now.

It's a easy escape for avoiding the discussion who controls it. Bitcoin core trolls liked to use it to deny the power of the core developers.
Because, how could Blockstream control the core devs and with it Bitcoin if bitcoin was "math"...

b/c if Satoshi did make one mistake, it was leaving before he removed the 1MB crippling back to the unlimited state. this is what BSV is undoing right now, with or w/o Satoshi or CSW. CSW might be the most visible proponent of this but all of us having been the foundation for pushing this forward way before he arrived (or reappeared).

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes, that's what I like about the stress tests. They force miners and business to invest in infrastructure. I have never found myself thinking to much about how I can get a strong node then these weeks. The harder it gets, the more I want to, because if it plays out, running a full node will have value instead of being a watchdog illusion and toy for basement nerds.

 

[79b79aa8]

@Christoph Bergmann i hope your node bites the dust soon - and you know i mean this well.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

New @satoshis_sockpuppet Go back to the original GCBU thread or /r/bitcoin archives circa 2011-13, that was the prevailing view promoted by just about everyone involved including those who later became core devs. You are trying to rewrite history with that comment.

There have always been enough people saying that it is a social experiment.

b/c if Satoshi did make one mistake, it was leaving before he removed the 1MB crippling back to the unlimited state.

Absolutely agreed.
Imho BCH has done this also.

 

[Griffith]

Tell me, what is different today from that worldview?

Nothing. CSW doesn't matter to me, he isnt satoshi. Actually... Who satoshi is doesn't matter too much to me either. I am behind the idea of globally scaling a blockchain to work as peer to peer electronic cash and that is why i am here.

The reason I consider CSW my only issue with BSV is because he is the biggest (or one of) public figures for that coin and hes a fucking asshole so it hurts BSV by association.

 

[cypherdoc]

the hilarious thing i get from small blockists like @jtoomim is that the 6 block reorg that occurred last week was an "obvious demonstration that BSV is not Bitcoin", full stop. he referenced the WP calculations for 6 block confirms being mathematically unbreakable as his evidence.

that's crazy. and i paraphrase what Gavin once said; "skeptics dismiss the ability of BSV/Bitcoin to respond". who here thinks that miners, as a response, will not upgrade the processing and connectivity of their hardware? who here thinks the miners, as a response, will not temporarily set a lower than 128MB soft (hard?) blocksize limit to protect against another reorg? who here thinks that @shadders and @Otaci, as a response, won't double their efforts at improving the p2p networking code to more tightly sync mempools? these are the responses that the free market will demand and that will be addressed with time. given the right economic incentives of BSV means this story of multiple successes, punctuated by an occasional failure, will never end.

 

[rocks]

because if it plays out, running a full node will have value instead of being a watchdog illusion and toy for basement nerds.

It is shocking how many people believe that the number of non-mining nodes provides any value or security to the network. A few high performant nodes provides more value than thousands of raspberry pi toys.

 

[cypherdoc]

CSW doesn't matter to me

I consider CSW my only issue with BSV

c'mon man, which is it?

The reason I consider CSW my only issue with BSV is because he is the biggest (or one of) public figures for that coin and hes a fucking asshole so it hurts BSV by association.

this is all in your mind.

i'm reasonably satisfied with the answer i got from @shadders here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1414#post-91348

if nchain ever tries to make trouble with the base protocol years from now when BSV is a multi-billion/trillion coin, the BSV community can just fork off. that's my working assumption that most likely will never have to play out.

 

[rocks]

The reason I consider CSW my only issue with BSV is because he is the biggest (or one of) public figures for that coin and hes a fucking asshole so it hurts BSV by association.

Just about everyone on the planet today has a smart phone and interacts with social media and dozens of other categories of sites every day.

Tell me how many people have any idea what the back end systems are for those sites or who the prominent personalities are for them? The answer is just about no one.

It will be the same for Bitcoin, services will be built and BSV will be the backend infrastructure that supports those services, and most people won't know or care who CSV is. His personality is not a blocker to adoption in any manner.

 

[Griffith]

c'mon man, which is it?

I can both not care about him and see him as damaging to BSV. those two things arent mutually exclusive. This is the same thing as someone who lives in asia not caring about article 13 while still seeing it as damaging to internet freedom in europe.

@rocks his constant patent threats kind of forces businesses to pay attention to him though doesnt it? They probably at a minimum have to be sure they dont break one

 

[cypherdoc]

Imho BCH has done this also.

but you can see how they haven't. the ongoing hypocrisy of claiming to need to scale the protocol via CTOR and not blocksize now b4 ossification; yet simultaneously claiming to be able to increase blocksize easily who knows how many years out and who knows how many times to keep the limit well above demand. the protocol devs need to keep the paychecks coming via continuous optimizations.

 

[bitsko]

so, this is awesome:

tx stress test came from some devs in china (one of the guys that developed bitdiary i think)

it was intentionally not announced to nchain and the like (muh cennerlized dictator @freetrader )

and they are saying 'orphans are a part of the protocol' HA

BCHes, pull your collective heads out of cores ass plz.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Nice. So I guess after the next sv release we'll get a stress test with higher throughput.

Sad that no miner uses the bu client. Would have been interesting how it performs.

Some little story about the stupidity of anti Craig sentiment ...

After thinking about bitcoin and privacy for years I arrived at that it has a very good balance of transparency and privacy. This was one of the reasons I am impressed with Craig, as he made the same point, but better and more clear. He helped me shape my thinking about it, while so many people tell me he is against privacy.

In recent month I explained the privacy thing two times in front of an audience which mostly laughs about 'faketoshi' Partly I even used terms from Craig.

And you know what happens? Everyone totally agreed and found my presentation very insightful.

So ... People agree with Craig as long as they don't know that he said it.

 

[bitsko]

'Sad that no miner uses the bu client. Would have been interesting how it performs.'

yep. BU has had some great scaling ideas and was there first like parallel validation.

 

[rocks]

So ... People agree with Craig as long as they don't know that he said it.

This more than anything is likely why Satoshi remained anonymous. He knew that if he came out he would only serve as a lightning rod for attacks against Bitcoin. By staying anonymous he took himself out of the equation.

 

[79b79aa8]

why do we need capacity 10,000x above current use? because bitcoin will start hitting its stride when trading bots perform thousands of forex micro-trades per second, settled on the blockchain. that's when.

but forex markets have no incentive to integrate with a blockchain system that fails at 1000 TPS (where BSV is today, ahead of everyone else). integration occurs when and only when money is to be made. there will be money to be made when time to settlement for some enormous number of trades is severely reduced. forex trading will only come to an unlimited bitcoin.

none of this can even begin to happen over the lightning network. the payment channel solution is conceived for retail, mom and pop transactions, not for global finance. finance requires both settlement and regulatory compliance. it is safe to stop worrying about a 7 TPS chain + LN.

so: either BCH redoubles its scaling efforts now, or it is left behind by BSV. do the ABC devs have the resources, ability, and foresight to focus on massive scaling? maybe. i'd say either BU keeps the pace, or BCH is out of the finance game.