Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cbeast]

[doublepost=1556380895][/doublepost]upon thinking about it, it may be Bitcoin's destiny (better path) to onboard institutions before ordinary users in order to allow them to grow just as big and fast as nchain/CSW in a future BSV world. that way, if and when CSW fraud decides to inappropriately change the protocol (in a Satoshi coin grab for instance) those institutions would be in a great position to hard fork the code away from him while easily weathering financially any patent lawsuit using the promises heretofore provided by Nchain to be responsible against him

Who is going to onboard institutions, a community, or a corporation with hundreds of use-case, non-protocol patents? If CSW were to attempt a future fraud, that would devalue the blockchain to zero, so there is no rational reason to expect that. Isn't it more likely nChain won't "coin grab" but instead license patents? Which institution will "be in a great position to hard fork the code away from him"? If Visa does it, will Mastercard use their fork and pay their fees? I don't think so. They already have proprietary systems and aren't interested in selling a new one to compete. I'm really quite surprised with these arguments. I mean it's great that bch may want to imitate bsv, but if you imitate them, and then create strawmen to attack them, it looks sketchy.

 

[bitsko]

"The truth is that bitcoin is making a bull run any moment from now and the wise investors have already started investing heavily, don't be left out on this rare opportunity of earning big from cryptocurrency investment."

Looking back on december of 2017, all the instances of bitcoin related discussion I saw in the wild; the young person talking about their entry, the elderly with their coinbase ETH chart on the cellphone. They nearly all lost money, are still at a loss. I thought back then; perhaps we have reached full saturation of newbies with extra money to lose. That perhaps this time around they'll refuse having been burned so recently.

I can't tell for sure if there are even more people that will line up to be scammed, but judging from 'Jenifer's' post, there will be no shortage of vultures looking to scalp the losers on their way up and down.

I hope that one day the majority of people wont know about bitcoin through losing money like this.

 

[shilch]

IPv6 jumbo payload allows up to 4.3 GB packets. Anyone recognize that number?

It appears that the Metanet idea of encapsulating all Internet data, "a Bitcoin transaction in every packet," was foreseen by Satoshi and baked into the original design with OP_PUSHDATA4.

The fact that OP_PUSHDATA4 allows exactly as many bytes to be pushed as the size of a IPv6 jumbogram is just the result of both using an unsigned 32-bit integer (4 bytes) as length. In the same way, OP_PUSHDATA2 allows pushing as many bytes as the size of an IPv4 packet (2 bytes, that is an unsigned 16-bit integer).

 

[rocks]

not sure i follow . . . BSV is hellbent on scaling.

Yes BSV is hellbent on scaling, the question is how will that scaling be done and what is required to make it happen.

For BCH, BTC and other chains scaling requires the reference client dev team to update the reference client to be able to handle higher volume. This requires them have the ability to make the necessary improvements, to want to make them, and to actually do so. This is clearly implied by BCH's "we won't scale until we know it is safe to do so" comments after the re-org last week. For BCH to increase the limit they expect to first update the SW reference client and then have the network safely upgrade to that. The problem with this is it removes economic motivation for others to invest in code improvements towards scaling, this is what we saw with BTC and what is happening to BCH.

BSV is taking an entirely different approach. BSV will simply keep bumping the cap up without making much if any improvements to the reference client. That leaves it up to network participants to keep up. If you are a miner and don't want your blocks to be orphaned, well improve your node yourself. In doing so economic incentives motivate the SW development and the better SW developers gain economic benefits, which they then reinvest improving the network.

 

[cypherdoc]

Who is going to onboard institutions, a community, or a corporation with hundreds of use-case, non-protocol patents? If CSW were to attempt a future fraud, that would devalue the blockchain to zero, so there is no rational reason to expect that. Isn't it more likely nChain won't "coin grab" but instead license patents? Which institution will "be in a great position to hard fork the code away from him"? If Visa does it, will Mastercard use their fork and pay their fees? I don't think so. They already have proprietary systems and aren't interested in selling a new one to compete. I'm really quite surprised with these arguments. I mean it's great that bch may want to imitate bsv, but if you imitate them, and then create strawmen to attack them, it looks sketchy.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood my post. first, I'm not saying CSW is a fraud or that he'll definitely try to steal coins, I'm just saying bsv needs to be prepared for the worst. second, I'm not saying institutions will be the first to adopt bsv, I'm just saying that if they do, it could be a good thing, since they in aggregate (as opposed to a community filled just with individual users and a few voluntary devs), would be able to create a hard fork and defend it financially from a lawsuit if CSW goes rogue.

 

[Norway]

Lots of speculation in r/btc about the unknown "Satoshi Nakamoto" miner on BCH.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bibcxp/all_the_blocks_mined_by_this_unknown_miner_on_the/

Could we head for a BCH split in two weeks?

 

[cbeast]

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood my post. first, I'm not saying CSW is a fraud or that he'll definitely try to steal coins, I'm just saying bsv needs to be prepared for the worst. second, I'm not saying institutions will be the first to adopt bsv, I'm just saying that if they do, it could be a good thing, since they in aggregate (as opposed to a community filled just with individual users and a few voluntary devs), would be able to create a hard fork and defend it financially from a lawsuit if CSW goes rogue.

I appreciate there isn't much ad hom here. Incidentally, here is an example of a vector to onboard institutions. It seems like nChain is already on top of it.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh brother

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The fact that OP_PUSHDATA4 allows exactly as many bytes to be pushed as the size of a IPv6 jumbogram is just the result of both using an unsigned 64-bit integer (4 bytes) as length. In the same way, OP_PUSHDATA2 allows pushing as many bytes as the size of an IPv4 packet (2 bytes, that is an unsigned 16-bit integer).

The context is that there have already been speculations here about the conspicuously large size OP_PUSHDATA4 allows. Why have this when there is already OP_PUSHDATA2? Some even wondered how that fits in a packet, probably not knowing about jumbo payloads. To me this suggests pretty strongly a vision much bigger than simple cash transactions and rudimentary smart contracts.

Among other aspects, this once again speaks to how Satoshi's design accounted for many more elements than he ever got around to explaining, that he built it with awareness of more than most of those who took up the mantle of development since. That it was no incremental "evolution," no mere slapping together of a few existing technologies that someone else would have done within a few years if he hadn't, but rather a deeply thought out system designed intentionally with a lot of wisdom. Perhaps even that Bitcoin is a wheel whereas Satoshi wanted a car.

 

[Manfred]

Becky’s Affiliated: A discussion with Calvin Ayre on today’s BSV landscape

 

[Norway]

If BCH splits May 15, which chain should keep the ticker BCH? Which chain should keep the name Bitcoin Cash?

 

[freetrader]

If BCH splits May 15, which chain should keep the ticker BCH? Which chain should keep the name Bitcoin Cash?

BCH is performing an upgrade on May 15, and that chain will still be called BCH.

Deal with it.

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
Sounds like you're the one that can't deal with the fact that a protocol change (hard fork) is a potential chain split. I know you have this knowledge.

 

[bitsko]

It has already been made clear that BCH is the chain which the development committee assists the exchanges in following. Hoover dams of hashrate cannot change this.

 

[cypherdoc]

ABC will not allow scaling beyond 32mb until we/they say so.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@freetrader
Sounds like you're the one that can't deal with the fact that a protocol change (hard fork) is a potential chain split. I know you have this knowledge.

Are we back to demonizing hard forks?

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
No, it has nothing to do with demons. The miners choose what chain they want to mine and for the reasons they choose. One or more miners could disagree with adding Schnorr signatures or just the consept of changing the protocol every 6 months.

 

[cypherdoc]

this is so RCH to watch. we have a small group of devs with its cultish following convinced they have the ability to see the future better than the entire finite space of human beings we call the world.
[doublepost=1556542234][/doublepost]ABC might have a point if folks like Ramanujan didn't exist. but they do.

 

[79b79aa8]

expansion of the Scaling Test Network.
@sickpig did you end up connecting a BU node?

 

[cypherdoc]

Are we back to demonizing hard forks?

no, it's just clear that you're the kinda guy who believes that if jacking off once a month is good for your mental health, surely doing it 6x a day must be better.