Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

oh brother. how ironic.

 

[bitsko]

Splitphobia - that poster gets it right

seems like nonsense, carry on.

how about this simple statement:

Segwit is a fork of bitcoin.

 

[lunar]

Sorry, I have to follow my conscience so I'll just put this here and let you all yell at me for a bit: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip...config-parameters-in-bucash.23725/#post-92246

And I can respect a different vision and goal for a blockchain than my own,

Disappointing, that you no longer have a vision aligned to the economic system laid out in the whitepaper and original code. This translates to 'I think bitcoin is broken it needs fixing'. Can you spell out for us non coders what exactly you wish to change from the whitepaper design and why this needs fixing?

But although a blockchain should be leaderless, nChain-affiliated individuals have taken on the mantle of leaders of the BSV effort.

nChain have had no choice, they are the only group left still defending the original economic code. What's more, they are pushing for a fixed and stable protocol that nobody can change. It's the only path where eventually, everyone will agree. All other options lead to constant dev fighting. (or possibly war, if countries take sides) This is basic stuff @theZerg, Bitcoin is an economic incentive system, as such there will always be money making code changes that can divert incentives from neutral, towards the benefit of special interest groups. Blockstream.

The litigation by Craig Wright over tweets has personally tipped me over the edge.

I'd be interested to know where you stand politically. This statement comes over as full anarchist. If so, how do you resolve this dispute? If I were to relentlessly start calling you a fraud, to the point it was damaging your reputation and causing you financial loss, what other method do you propose for resolution other than the law? In an anarchist world, anyone making damaging statements about a billionaire would probably be silenced painfully and quickly, thankfully we have 1000's of years of legal history where humanity has evolved and created common laws that prevent violence and seek mediation in such situations. I for one am glad we no longer draw pistols as dawn. I suspect if we did, people would think twice before making public defamatory remarks. Now at least you can make damaging remarks about billionaires, but you'd better have solid evidence.

And there is a generally accepted method to prove you are Satoshi -- sign statements either with Satoshi's GPG key

This is nonsense, keys are not proof of identity they are only proof of possession. Again law solves this, there are well established ways to prove identity, they rely on using multiple corroborating, independent, sources. As Craig states, he paid for several bitcoin related services with his credit card, the courts will decide if this, and other documents provided are sufficient? Not a key signing, otherwise Satoshi could just forward me the keys, and I could prove it was me. (There are other reasons Core trolls are pushing for a key signing as evidence, the rabbit hole goes v.deep)

A rejection of core blockchain philosophy.... A more accurate but dry description of the philosophy is perhaps "the blockchain can avoid the need for legal recourse in many situations.

From someone who understands 'core blockchain philosophy.
Bitcoin will hopefully change and simplify laws in the future, but staying within the law now, is the only fully inclusive method for a world currency. Otherwise you are just globally excluding all law abiding citizens and business.

And just as importantly, I believe that people have the right to express their opinion on unsubstantiated claims without fearing litigation.

Legally there is a gulf of difference between saying "In my opinion, Craig is a fraud" and "Craig is a fraud" one is opinion, the other is presented as fact. The question here concerns is damage, does the statement damage reputation or cause financial loss? If you were Satoshi and you'd suffered years of online hatred and abuse, how would you make your stand? What would be the straw to break your back?

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/evidence-and-law-f8f10001efa5

 

[Zarathustra]

Nice conversation between @Peter R , Daniel Krawisz and Roger Ver:


@lunar

> In an anarchist world, anyone making damaging statements about a billionaire would probably be silenced painfully and quickly, thankfully we have 1000's of years of legal history where humanity has evolved and created common laws that prevent violence and seek mediation in such situations.

That's why anarcho capitalism is not anarchism. It's idiotism. It cannot exist and it never existed.

Anarchism works only within Dunbar communities. Nowhere else.

Although most known societies are characterized by the presence of hierarchy or the state, anthropologists have studied many egalitarian stateless societies, including most nomadic hunter-gatherer societies[45][46] and horticultural societies such as the Semai and the Piaroa. Many of these societies can be considered to be anarchic in the sense that they explicitly reject the idea of centralized political authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Anthropology

 

[bitsko]

Is the thumbs-through-the-sleeve-of-their-sweater development era coming to a close?

 

[lunar]

Anarchism works only within Dunbar communities. Nowhere else.

Dunbars number has come up lots over the years. This is an important observation.

"Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships... ~ 150" wiki

In other words Anarchism breaks down at the exact point where individuals can no longer maintain an active trust profile on others in their sphere of interaction. Or the point where a group has grown sufficiently large, that one member (knowingly or unknowingly) can take advantage of the system. (anonymity being a problem)

The future of Bitcoin will undoubtedly involve some sort of universal reputation (trust) system. It may indeed remove some of the reasons to distrust others, and lessen the importance of Dunbars number. Perhaps this increased ability to trust the honesty of strangers will allow a liberalisation in law and reduction in government interference. Minarchy or Night-watchman state. FTW.
[doublepost=1556641160,1556640235][/doublepost]If you're a bitcoin historian and haven't read this yet.. Juicy stuff.

The puzzle of the double hash

"There is a long-standing puzzle within Bitcoin that has not yet been solved correctly: why did I use a double hash?"

 

[cypherdoc]

Disappointing, that you no longer have a vision aligned to the economic system laid out in the whitepaper and original code. This translates to 'I think bitcoin is broken it needs fixing'. Can you spell out for us non coders what exactly you wish to change from the whitepaper design and why this needs fixing?



nChain have had no choice, they are the only group left still defending the original economic code. What's more, they are pushing for a fixed and stable protocol that nobody can change. It's the only path where eventually, everyone will agree. All other options lead to constant dev fighting. (or possibly war, if countries take sides) This is basic stuff @theZerg, Bitcoin is an economic incentive system, as such there will always be money making code changes that can divert incentives from neutral, towards the benefit of special interest groups. Blockstream.


I'd be interested to know where you stand politically. This statement comes over as full anarchist. If so, how do you resolve this dispute? If I were to relentlessly start calling you a fraud, to the point it was damaging your reputation and causing you financial loss, what other method do you propose for resolution other than the law? In an anarchist world, anyone making damaging statements about a billionaire would probably be silenced painfully and quickly, thankfully we have 1000's of years of legal history where humanity has evolved and created common laws that prevent violence and seek mediation in such situations. I for one am glad we no longer draw pistols as dawn. I suspect if we did, people would think twice before making public defamatory remarks. Now at least you can make damaging remarks about billionaires, but you'd better have solid evidence.



This is nonsense, keys are not proof of identity they are only proof of possession. Again law solves this, there are well established ways to prove identity, they rely on using multiple corroborating, independent, sources. As Craig states, he paid for several bitcoin related services with his credit card, the courts will decide if this, and other documents provided are sufficient? Not a key signing, otherwise Satoshi could just forward me the keys, and I could prove it was me. (There are other reasons Core trolls are pushing for a key signing as evidence, the rabbit hole goes v.deep)


From someone who understands 'core blockchain philosophy.
Bitcoin will hopefully change and simplify laws in the future, but staying within the law now, is the only fully inclusive method for a world currency. Otherwise you are just globally excluding all law abiding citizens and business.


Legally there is a gulf of difference between saying "In my opinion, Craig is a fraud" and "Craig is a fraud" one is opinion, the other is presented as fact. The question here concerns is damage, does the statement damage reputation or cause financial loss? If you were Satoshi and you'd suffered years of online hatred and abuse, how would you make your stand? What would be the straw to break your back?

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/evidence-and-law-f8f10001efa5

i doubt you're going to get any answer anymore from BU officers. they're more into talking at us as opposed to to us.

 

[Peter R]

@lunar

The design of bitcoin works as is. It doesn't need fixing. Bitcoin can scale to global levels today without any technological breakthroughs required -- just continued state-of-the-art hardware and software engineering.

This has always been my position.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Plumbing the depths of delusion:

 

[rocks]

Question to any developers who know the client code base (if they're still here).

The Bitcoin client includes a signaling interface that publishes various events (new transactions, blocks, chain state changes, etc.) that other internal components can subscribe to. For example, the bitcoind wallet subscribes to this interface to track wallet related events and the ZMQ network interface subscribes to it as well. Here is the API.
https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/src/validationinterface.h

I searched but could not find a spec on the exact behavior of various events (for example how is a re-org handled). Does anyone know of a published spec on this API? It's not doc'ed on the bitcoin developer pages as far as I can see. I can trace it awhile to figure out how it behaves, but it would be nicer if the behavior was documented somewhere.

 

[shadders]

I don't know of any documentation for it although we use it extensively and learned by looking at the code. Bitcoin SV is planning to extend this interface substantially. The new feeds will be well documented. Hopefully as part of that piece we can document what we've learned about the legacy ones as well.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Am I missing something or is the BSV rhetoric about "locking down the protocol" and "setting it in stone" not an even more extreme form of Core's "extreme consensus"?

extreme consensus - "Protocol changes can only be safely made with at least 95% agreement."
super-duper extreme consensus - "We couldn't change the protocol even if we had literally unanimous 100% agreement. Set. In. Stone."

Except, the protocol isn't set in stone. It's set in code, and that code can be changed. "The protocol" is just the currently-strongest set of Schelling points defining how a particular ledger is updated. The status quo is a very strong Schelling point (as we unfortunately saw with the 1-MB limit). But it's not infinitely strong and it shouldn't be. I think the protocol should be expected to "ossify" over time, and in general I think that's a good thing. There is value in protocol stability. I think BCH's current approach of "scheduling" hard forks every 6 months is unhealthy. At the very least, I think will become increasingly unhealthy if it's continued for too long. But protocol stability isn't the only value. As I wrote a while back on the subject of "extreme consensus":

I get the idea. "Hey, if we could get Bitcoin stakeholders to widely internalize the idea that we shouldn't make changes to Bitcoin without a super-duper (95%) majority in support, that would act as a strong bulwark against improvident and value-destroying changes (like raising the supply limit)." Well, yeah, I guess that's true. Of course, there's a corollary to that. Such a norm would also act as a strong obstacle to the implementation of necessary and value-enhancing changes. In other words, it's a stupidly overbroad norm that is, at best, a piss-poor proxy for the norms you actually want, e.g., some general bias in favor of the status quo ("we shouldn't make changes to Bitcoin unless we're sure there's a very good reason for doing so" / "if it ain't broke don't fix it"), combined with some even stronger skepticism regarding changes to features of Bitcoin that are viewed as especially important (e.g., the 21M supply cap).

 

[rocks]

@shadders thanks for the reply. That is what I figured but thought it was worthwhile to ask. The sequence of events during re-org is what I was most interested in, but yes can figure that out from looking at the code. Definitely looking forward to the new feeds you are planning to add, there are many downstream possibilities for that...

 

[torusJKL]

Plumbing the depths of delusion:

Bitcoin adoption is almost zero (when compared to the global market of transactions) where does he see Hyperbitconization?

And the saddest thing is that Pierre hopes that the adoption does not accelerate.

 

[freetrader]

the BSV community can just hard fork away from him. no problem.

Except you never managed to do that with Core/BTC over several years when there was great need to do so.

There is literal precedent for you being incapable - or unwilling - to do so. The "you" here referring to the largest parts of the "BSV community", including all its devs, spokespeople, chief scientist etc.

 

[cbeast]

Am I missing something or is the BSV rhetoric about "locking down the protocol" and "setting it in stone" not an even more extreme form of Core's "extreme consensus"?

extreme consensus - "Protocol changes can only be safely made with at least 95% agreement."
super-duper extreme consensus - "We couldn't change the protocol even if we had literally unanimous 100% agreement. Set. In. Stone."

Except, the protocol isn't set in stone. It's set in code, and that code can be changed. "The protocol" is just the currently-strongest set of Schelling points defining how a particular ledger is updated. The status quo is a very strong Schelling point (as we unfortunately saw with the 1-MB limit). But it's not infinitely strong and it shouldn't be. I think the protocol should be expected to "ossify" over time, and in general I think that's a good thing. There is value in protocol stability. I think BCH's current approach of "scheduling" hard forks every 6 months is unhealthy. At the very least, I think will become increasingly unhealthy if it's continued for too long. But protocol stability isn't the only value. As I wrote a while back on the subject of "extreme consensus":

I get the idea. "Hey, if we could get Bitcoin stakeholders to widely internalize the idea that we shouldn't make changes to Bitcoin without a super-duper (95%) majority in support, that would act as a strong bulwark against improvident and value-destroying changes (like raising the supply limit)." Well, yeah, I guess that's true. Of course, there's a corollary to that. Such a norm would also act as a strong obstacle to the implementation of necessary and value-enhancing changes. In other words, it's a stupidly overbroad norm that is, at best, a piss-poor proxy for the norms you actually want, e.g., some general bias in favor of the status quo ("we shouldn't make changes to Bitcoin unless we're sure there's a very good reason for doing so" / "if it ain't broke don't fix it"), combined with some even stronger skepticism regarding changes to features of Bitcoin that are viewed as especially important (e.g., the 21M supply cap).

The rhetorical argument phase is past. That ship has sailed. Patent law will help with some of the consensus issues. Nobody cares about who invests in Bitcoin SV. Now the paradigm is "what can I build and who will be my customer?" Folks can go ahead and experiment with their pump and dump tokens while they are unregulated, meanwhile the big boys will get back to work.

 

[freetrader]

Coingeek's 5M GBP tokenization contest winner, project "Tokenized", Clemens Ley's tokenization project on BSV seems to be facing IP uncertainties after developer split

 

[cypherdoc]

Except you never managed to do that with Core/BTC over several years when there was great need to do so.

There is literal precedent for you being incapable - or unwilling - to do so. The "you" here referring to the largest parts of the "BSV community", including all its devs, spokespeople, chief scientist etc.

not sure what you mean.
many of the BSV supporters are OG's from BTC that have gone through both the BCH and BSV hard forks.

 

[torusJKL]

Coingeek's 5M GBP tokenization contest winner, project "Tokenized", seems to be facing IP uncertainties

Tokenized has nothing to do with Brenton Gunning.
Maybe you are confusing him with Brendan Lee.
[doublepost=1556776804][/doublepost]

Except, the protocol isn't set in stone. It's set in code, and that code can be changed.

Yes, developers can change the code which gives them allot of power that could be misused (as seen with Core and ABC).

And that's where the miners come into play.
In BSV it is their job to guard the rules and orphan every attempt to change the protocol.
(there might be exceptions like for example sha256 is broken)

 

[Norway]

Am I missing something or is the BSV rhetoric about "locking down the protocol" and "setting it in stone" not an even more extreme form of Core's "extreme consensus"?

If you don't see the value of a stable protocol, you are missing something, yes.

Except, the protocol isn't set in stone. It's set in code, and that code can be changed.

TCP/IP is "set in code" too, or rather, implemented in code. Anyone can change software that use TCP/IP to support another home made protocol. But your software wouldn't be able to function with the rest of the network.