Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Here CSW explains Turing completeness in Bitcoin for those still skeptical or who think the claim is trivial. His conception here should be much clearer than what you may have heard before from him.

[doublepost=1556167402,1556166504][/doublepost]Another great Jimmy Nguyen interview. He covers many of the topics discussed here this last week.

 

[Zarathustra]

OneMegGreg managed to become the most upvoted idol of the BCH 'community' (aka CSW devil cult).
Those undead caricatures of anarchists still believe that the invention of anonymity is a great progress for the society.

 

[Manfred]

Din't we all come a long way

 

[sgbett]

Andrew, I am well aware of all the 'faketoshi' facts. I would have given up on him long ago if there where not ..

1) holes in the faketoshi theory, like how could he make his story against Gavin Andresen despite Gavin having access to unpublished mails with Satoshi? Or the still unexplained live signature ... Or the lack of a fraud business model (he burns money instead of getting it) and a behavior often completely irrational for 'faketoshi' (with the result that up to Noone believes him) ...

2) a lot of live demonstrations of an original understanding of the system on slack, reddit, Twitter and so on. I am not a technical expert, but I have a good knowledge, and for me he often falsified the 'poor technical knowlegde' thesis in real time with surprising arguments which made sense after thinking about

3) a very substantiated vision about bitcoin, brought up with a consistency over the years which is unseen in the ecosystem, regarding scaling (small world), privacy, scripts and much more.

4) proof of work: he founded a development team, a mining pool, gave vision for a lot of people, made hundreds of patent applications, invested in a lot of companies, and was the force behind creating the biggest blocks ever published in a live version of Bitcoin.

This are things that count against the faketoshi thesis and make me undecided, despite all the hints to faketoshi ...

In the end I am where I have been since years: I accept the fact that he can be faketoshi but still have a healthy influence over bitcoin.

Are core scammer? Probably not (the blockstream business model is very similar to the assumed nchain fraud business model). Did core fuck up bitcoin? Probably yes.

Are ABC scammers? No. Did they fuck up bitcoin cash? Probably yes. At least I am hardly attracted by their vision.

Are ETH devs scammer? No. But they created the ground for thousands of scammer. Are Ripple founders scammer? Probably not. But they created the worst crypto system you can imagine. Are IOTA founders scammers? No. But their product is (unintendely) more scam than BSV can ever be ...

Is csw a fraud? Maybe. Did he fuck up bsv? No. He put bitcoin on the track which is by far most attractive for me.

If you can't get over the 'faketoshi' story, it's OK. I will never accuse or insult you for what you spend your time with. I will also not vote for bitcoin unlimited supporting bsv when you don't want to support it.

But please... Try to ask what you want to achieve with bitcoin and try to resist putting it down to one person.

Perfectly put. Matches my thinking exactly. You have to separate the people from the ideas, or you are basically trapped inside a giant extended ad-hominem of your own making.

On another note - All the chatter about BU supporting BSV? I don't even care any more. From where i'm stood it looks entirely unnecessary to its ongoing success *shrugs* be a shame, because cypherdoc (mostly, and others) make good points around it being some kind of insurance in the (imho, ever decreasing) likelihood that nChain suddenly u-turns and doesn't just take bitcoin back to "v0.1-final" like it claims it will, and has - to date - demonstrated it is doing.

 

[freetrader]

on a different thread, i asked @freetrader if he thought a dynamic blocksize limit effectively counters the fidelity effect.

obviously that's the start of any answer -- but only the start. there seem to be two leading proposals: BIP101 and Assymetric Moving Blocksize. both turn on the idea that adoption occurs gradually, and keep capacity ahead. but is there not another possibility, that capacity is a precondition for adoption? is it not at least possible that certain types of usecase only are viable if the capacity exists ex ante (e.g., perhaps, automated micro trading on forex)? what then?

I think it's obvious to most people that "capacity is a precondition for adoption".

For big business to adopt, they might need a certain capacity.

I suggest they run limited volume pilots / trials to confirm that the basics work for them, then contact a big miner like Bitcoin.com or even several and convincingly disclose their need for more block space.
Or just announce their needs publicly.

Miners and the developer community are in communication, so developers will find out that the network needs more capacity than it can currently provide (this isn't saying developers should be idle and not work on increasing capacity, but there is always prioritization going on, and sometimes devs might really be what business might want, despite their best efforts).

If businesses are not willing to discuss in advance that they have capacity requirements exceeding the network, then all they can do is max out the capacity to send a strong signal.

There is the saying "build it and they will come". But the other side of that is "tell us what you need, so it can be built".

For those who think this means devs will completely de-prioritize scaling on BCH as long as no-one tell us they need more capacity -- I think you will be proven wrong.

 

[bitsko]

Lately I've been thinking of Bitcoin as a competitive economic system the purpose of which is to reduce transactions costs.

When transactions costs are reduced to a point at which they do not contribute friction, they allow for exchange in scenarios which were previously untenable.

This increased scope of economic interaction allows for the creation of additional wealth.

(This is somewhat influenced by Coase, though im not much of a scholar)

 

[Zarathustra]

I suggest they run limited volume pilots / trials to confirm that the basics work for them, then contact a big miner like Bitcoin.com or even several and convincingly disclose their need for more block space.

Strange economics. Do you think BCH will be able to compete with this strategy, or was it a joke?

 

[Manfred]

Bitcoin SV, are planning to help The Honest Men in the final push for the Holy Grail of Premier league football either via the play-offs over the coming week or next season.
https://coingeek.com/ayr-united-announce-sponsorship-with-bitcoin-sv-bsv-the-original-bitcoin/

 

[Zarathustra]

Gregory Maxwell:

"I wouldn't say I 'fully support' either side now. I'm simply not as interested in the scaling debate as many are. I hold BTC, BCH, and ETH."

 

[sgbett]

As much as I want to point and laugh at the back-pedalling, I'm gong to take the morale high ground and consider just what this means in terms of the truth becoming self evident.

The more the people try to save face, the more reassuring it is. This is "the flippening" imho

 

[79b79aa8]

that's not back-pedaling it's duplicitous behavior.

 

[bitsko]

"If businesses are not willing to discuss in advance that they have capacity requirements exceeding the network, then allthey can do is max out the capacity to send a strong signal."

paraphrase:
All they need to do is arrange it beforehand with Amaury Sechet, but if not, they just need to risk their efforts and spend a lot on fees by maxing out the blocks

such a capacity planning clusterfuck, im sure Fidelity and the like will jump right on it.

 

[freetrader]

@bitsko / @Zarathustra : still doing a lot better than nChain/CG who pretended they have big users lined up and then nothing materializes.

Yes, I say to big business, hit the Bitcoin Cash chain with as much traffic as you want if your planning indicates that you'd use up < 50% of the remaining non-utilized capacity.

If your estimates indicate you'll max out the blockspace and beyond, then make yourselves heard in advance so that people can make sure the system will be able to accommodate you.

BSV'ers obviously don't know how to attract users. They should look into why that is.

#BCHPLS

 

[bitsko]

'we will upgrade I promise'

hey, what if nChain wants to use the blockspace, will you help put out code to block (more) transactions, hahaha


act like a bch, chain lack like a bch

 

[Manfred]

Some insight how it started

Few people seem to understand that the first version of Bitcoin following the genesis block fell over. The genesis block is dated to 3rd January, 2009. The first mined block occurred on 9th January.

The first reboot was an eye opener. I had configured all of the machines with the same time zones, even those in different countries. They all shut down to patch at the same time. The entire Bitcoin network stopped following the genesis block, and needed to be started again. When they came up, network services and connections were flaky, and the network forked and split, and it was a big mess to say the least.

I ran 67 machines in a cluster.

I had between 60 and 100 machines running at the time, of which an average of 55 or 56 would be mine personally. In the beginning, 75 were mine personally.

There weren’t a lot of machines running Bitcoin in 2009. To my knowledge, Dave ran one machine, that’s full-time, and he ran three or four on or off. Hal Finney ran a machine. Bear ran one or two.Around 10 machines, maybe 12, mined Bitcoin between 2009 and 2011. They included churches and charitable organizations that I did work for freely.

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/two-steps-forward-one-step-back-1ef6e60ccd8e

 

[cypherdoc]

paraphrase:
All they need to do is arrange it beforehand with Amaury Sechet, but if not, they just need to risk their efforts and spend a lot on fees by maxing out the blocks...

... only to have amaury et al nix any scaling at all.

what a bone headed strategy that no level minded company would ever take. Bitcoin, as the new kid on the block that doesn't hand out bailouts has to be way better and forward thinking than the existing competition. you gotta go to them. they ain't coming to you.

 

[79b79aa8]

learning about electronic data interchange. clearly it can encompass monetary transactions, and become ever more prevalent. but the rails need to be built, in advance i would think.
[doublepost=1556224217][/doublepost]@imaginary_username, you must have thought hard about this, care to chime in?

 

[bitsko]

EDI?

Now we're talking transaction cost savings.

But going to need bigger blocks.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is indeed gigantic.

The fact that EDI is "used to create new business information flow (that was not a paper flow before)" illustrates how reduced friction not only streamlines existing use cases but also opens new use cases, expanding the scope of economic interaction, as per @bitsko's point here:

When transactions costs are reduced to a point at which they do not contribute friction, they allow for exchange in scenarios which were previously untenable.

This increased scope of economic interaction allows for the creation of additional wealth.

The catch is that EDI is deeply intertwined with compliance, including WORM (immutable record) requirements under Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as of course legal traditions relating to fraud and traceability that are several centuries old.

Bitcoin's original design seemed cognizant of these realities, whereas the altcoins and protocol "innovators" don't even seem to discuss this as a topic and therefore are likely to run roughshod over the design and inadvertently close their chains off to this multi-trillion-dollar market.

 

[cbeast]

@bitsko / @Zarathustra : still doing a lot better than nChain/CG who pretended they have big users lined up and then nothing materializes.

Yes, I say to big business, hit the Bitcoin Cash chain with as much traffic as you want if your planning indicates that you'd use up < 50% of the remaining non-utilized capacity.

If your estimates indicate you'll max out the blockspace and beyond, then make yourselves heard in advance so that people can make sure the system will be able to accommodate you.

BSV'ers obviously don't know how to attract users. They should look into why that is.

#BCHPLS

Jobs didn't ask customers if they wanted pinhole cameras on their phones. Ford didn't ask his customers what color car they wanted. Coca Cola didn't ask customers if they should change the formula, er wait.. forget that one. Point is, nChain calls it Satoshi's Vision because they are trying to foresee the future market. Some folks like me believe they are correct.