Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

BCH further centralizing. what a shame:

Regrettably from our perspective, BCH miners have not embraced the forward-looking stance of respecting a supermajority of themselves in matters of protocol evolution. Instead, they pursue a strategy of scheduled hard forks at regular intervals. Such a strategy allows for a majority implementation to effectively act as gatekeepers of determining the content of these scheduled forks and is anything but representative. The artificial deadlines are a centralizing and ultimately destabilizing force on development.

https://honest.cash/dgenr8/xt-wont-follow-may-19-bch-fork-4313

when will BU officers get the hint?

 

[lunar]

money is data, data is money

The solution is Bitcoin.

Welcome back @AdrianX

You'll both like this presentation, by Brendan (imho currently one of best teachers in the space)

Bitcoin SV Channel Educational Series - Data Storage and it's application in Bitcoin


Bigger blocks; there will be a tipping point where data storage on the blockchain is the rational economic choice. It doesn't really hit a scaling limit

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader [...] FYI I'm eagerly waiting on your effort to split again.

"No split!"

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/meme-factory.1172/page-9#post-40145

[..] BCH is in good hands.

Same. Between ABC, BU, Flowee, BCHD, bcash, Verde and others I've missed or to come I am 100% optimistic on the outlook for Bitcoin Cash.

 

[Norway]

not at all. if ABC supporters had any real spine (translation - - >arguments) they'd be in here debating them at length. unfortunately, hypocrisy can only get you so far before you look stupid. the only one really willing to do that are guys like @freetrader.

It's really weired how all the members / officers voting to drop BSV support are not debating with arguments. @theZerg gave a reason for his vote (someone sued someone for libel), but haven't debated the topic much.

I guess they don't have any arguments other than Aussie Man Bad, and they know how stupid that argument looks like when written in a format longer than a tweet.

 

[cypherdoc]

>@theZerg gave a reason for his vote (someone sued someone for libel), but haven't debated the topic much

the craziest thing about that is that there's no evidence Calvin, CSW, or nchain have anything to do with the lawsuits against the devs.

 

[Zarathustra]

Some people here speculate on what my holdings are. I haven't told anyone here, and I'm not going to do it.

Pardon, my memory was wrong. Those I mentioned probably just said they are invested in both.
[doublepost=1557320803][/doublepost]

@cypherdoc
The thread degraded into a bunch of SV guys patting each others on the shoulders.

What a success!

That 'bunch' is made up of GCBU pioneers and early adopters who defend Bitcoin Unlimited against Bitcoin crippled/PoS/checkpoint/avalanche. In theory, the BCH supporters could try to compete on this thread or fork this thread. In practice they can't. Because they can't. PoW!

We are the Bitcoiners. Bitcoiners vs. Witcoiners. Only one side can win. That's us!
[doublepost=1557321113][/doublepost]

this is the kind of lunacy we face from the BCH community :

Their unregulated Ancap environment is a terrific thing.

 

[bitsko]

I would figure that the ostracism route BCHes are pursuing is much easier than the cognitive dissonance and accompanying nausea one would have to endure to promote developer controlled medium blocks for bitcoin unlimited. especially when they arent even the developers in control.

 

[freetrader]

Lol, you're a bozo. I never claimed to know @Norway's position

forget you said

That wouldn't be a problem for @cypherdoc, @Christoph Bergmann, @Norway, @rocks, @bitsko, @Zarathustra et al. who are hedged equally.

you can add @AdrianX to that list.

 

[cypherdoc]

funny you singled me out vs @Zarathustra and stripped the authors of those quotes to make you look less conflicted. but yeah, my bad for assuming he had it right, BCH.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

I have a question. If there is a seemingly unavoidable trend to centralization, would it be fair to surmise equivalency between CoreCoin, ABCCoin, and CoingeekCoin in this regard?

 

[cypherdoc]

btw @freetrader, I thought you said you had no time and other interests as excuses to not continue devving ABC? given all the time and effort you spend here on GCBU, you must have been referring to having to work this thread with your propaganda. for all your comment lines you could've written two new implementations by now, lol.

 

[freetrader]

for all your comment lines you could've written two new implementations, lol.

I might take your word more seriously if you had an inkling of software development.

 

[cypherdoc]

BCH further centralizing. what a shame:

Regrettably from our perspective, BCH miners have not embraced the forward-looking stance of respecting a supermajority of themselves in matters of protocol evolution. Instead, they pursue a strategy of scheduled hard forks at regular intervals. Such a strategy allows for a majority implementation to effectively act as gatekeepers of determining the content of these scheduled forks and is anything but representative. The artificial deadlines are a centralizing and ultimately destabilizing force on development.

https://honest.cash/dgenr8/xt-wont-follow-may-19-bch-fork-4313

btw, this is the first real hard evidence of how ABC's behavior adversely affects other BCH compatible implementations, just as all us BSV folks have claimed. when will ABC supporters pull their heads out of their collective asses and acknowledge this? that BU thinks they can gain any headway kowtowing to @deadalnix is beyond me while ostracizing all their original supporters who helped them gain a foothold to begin with.
[doublepost=1557326175][/doublepost]i think Tom Harding @dgenr8, someone we most definitely trust, should seriously think about continuing XT with BSV compatibility. i still think it would be a good idea for a competing implementation to exist in case BSV devs go rogue under direct orders from CSW, such as stealing old coins from old addresses that can't ever be proven to be truly lost. he wouldn't ever have to interface with CSW whom i know he dislikes. it shouldn't take much work as BSV is stripping down the protocol and streamlining it back to the original vision. who knows, in a far future, Tom could find himself in the position of benevolent dictator.
[doublepost=1557326337][/doublepost]

I might take your word more seriously if you had an inkling of software development.

if you were serious, you'd have acknowledged my highlighting of your hypocrisy.

 

[Norway]

Nasty trolls getting punished. Nice.

https://coingeek.com/coin-rivet-ceo-admits-publishing-false-information-calvin-ayre/

 

[cypherdoc]

The crypto sector is still in its infancy, as is the mindset displayed by many of its most ardent supporters. Until it evolves out of this juvenile state, with an ‘ends justify the means’ approach toward attacking supporters of rival technologies, crypto will remain on the fringes of the ‘traditional’ financial sector.

we have a couple of infants in this thread. all their adult ABC parents have left.
[doublepost=1557327834][/doublepost]

I have a question. If there is a seemingly unavoidable trend to centralization, would it be fair to surmise equivalency between CoreCoin, ABCCoin, and CoingeekCoin in this regard?

no. b/c the centralization, as thoroughly outlined by @dgenr8, comes from authoritarian devs arguing over who gets to make changes to the protocol. in BSV, that isn't possible b/c the protocol will soon be "locked down" around a few basic rules including an unlimited blocksize. then, devs can argue all they want about what is to be built on top of that protocol.
[doublepost=1557328085][/doublepost]

Just curious, does "equally weighted" mean own the same number of BTC, BCH, and BSV bitcoins? Or own the same fiat-equivalent amount?

The latter would of course be an actively managed weighting, i.e. now ~100 BSV for each BTC.

i would assume equal coins. b/c most here aren't active traders and getting airdropped fork coins is a passive event requiring zero effort.

[doublepost=1557328618][/doublepost]

freetrader and infiltrator sounds similar, somehow ...

psyops has refined itself over the years. hard forking Bitcoin requires considerable finesse. remember that dude TPTB_WANTS_WAR who trolled me relentlessly for over a year way back when? he was the crude T1 version. @freetrader is T3, liquid metal. his name sounds so...libertarian. it just flows off your lips.

 

[Zarathustra]

"New applications are built, and additional systems are constructed on top of the protocol, but the protocol itself remains stable. TCP is valid today just as it was in the past. If I plug a computer running DOS version 5.0 onto the network using a TCP stack program from the 80s, it will still connect to the Internet. If I connect a XENOS machine or a SunOS 3.0 computer using code from the 80s and 90s, it will still connect to the Internet, and it will be able to send and receive packets. That is protocol stability.

For Bitcoin to work and be stable, the protocol cannot change. If the protocol changes all the time, we end up like IPX. And when it does, business investment becomes stifled. The length of time needed to both create a new process and program and then recoup the costs is not given." (Satan)

 

[cypherdoc]

lol, it's truly amazing how ABC shills can't understand this simple business concept.

 

[freetrader]

psyops has refined itself over the years. hard forking Bitcoin requires considerable finesse. remember that dude TPTB_WANTS_WAR who trolled me relentlessly for over a year way back when? he was the crude T1 version. @freetrader is T3, liquid metal. his name sounds so...libertarian. it just flows off your lips.

LOL, you forgot: living rent-free on the Metanet

 

[lunar]

Brilliant.

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/dont-be-fooled-bitcoin-is-not-btc-61e6aee8ac53

Central banks are not the issue; manipulation is.

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.

My profound distrust is not towards central banks. It is towards technocrats who think they know far more than everyone else. It is my motivation behind creating Bitcoin. In the quote above, I make it very clear that I do not believe in the long-term viability of currencies that are trust based — that is, the DEVELOPERS can alter them as and when they please! That is, BTC is the reason Bitcoin exists. Bitcoin exists to ensure systems like BTC fail…

 

[cypherdoc]

this is fucking incredible. I've made this exact argument for years on r/btc and r/Bitcoin in promoting both ABC and Bitcoin UNLIMITED and got tons of upvotes as big blockists supposedly understood. now today, May 8, 2019, I'm getting downvotes for arguing the EXACT same thing. suddenly, small 32mb blocks have become the new narrative. WTF is going on? at least with early adopters like me you get consistency: