seems like nonsense, carry on.
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
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?And I can respect a different vision and goal for a blockchain than my own,
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.But although a blockchain should be leaderless, nChain-affiliated individuals have taken on the mantle of leaders of the BSV effort.
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.The litigation by Craig Wright over tweets has personally tipped me over the edge.
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)And there is a generally accepted method to prove you are Satoshi -- sign statements either with Satoshi's GPG key
From someone who understands 'core blockchain philosophy.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.
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?And just as importantly, I believe that people have the right to express their opinion on unsubstantiated claims without fearing litigation.
That's why anarcho capitalism is not anarchism. It's idiotism. It cannot exist and it never existed.> 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.
Dunbars number has come up lots over the years. This is an important observation.Anarchism works only within Dunbar communities. Nowhere else.
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.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
Bitcoin adoption is almost zero (when compared to the global market of transactions) where does he see Hyperbitconization?Plumbing the depths of delusion:
Except you never managed to do that with Core/BTC over several years when there was great need to do so.the BSV community can just hard fork away from him. no problem.
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.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).
not sure what you mean.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.
Tokenized has nothing to do with Brenton Gunning.Coingeek's 5M GBP tokenization contest winner, project "Tokenized", seems to be facing IP uncertainties
Yes, developers can change the code which gives them allot of power that could be misused (as seen with Core and ABC).Except, the protocol isn't set in stone. It's set in code, and that code can be changed.
If you don't see the value of a stable protocol, you are missing something, yes.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"?
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.Except, the protocol isn't set in stone. It's set in code, and that code can be changed.