Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

@Christoph Bergmann : sorry to see you go but I will correct you on your view of Bitcoin Cash and ABC.

ABC does not set the limit.

Their software is configurable.

There is also nothing stopping another client (BU, or maybe Bitcoin D-E-F) from implementing tech that can reliable achiever greater block sizes than ABC can produce and propagate across the network.
In that case such more advanced clients would win out in the end.
If there was enough network demand, this would happen much faster.

You are fully mistaken in your view of ABC as the "dictator of Bitcoin Cash".

However, I respect your integrity to leave BU and focus on SV.
If SV is supposed to have any chance of success, this kind of integrity and courage to take action will be what can make it happen.
Thanks. Your argument that ABC does not dictate blocksize limit is the same Core-argument we waded through over and over. "Everybody is free to run the software he wants", and so on.

I did not say I focus on BSV. I think they have by far the best concept, but I am very worried about the problems an overfocusation on CSW being Satoshi has caused. In general, I think the state of "Big Block Bitcoin" is very miserable these days.

I was just not able to stand the fact that Bitcoin Unlimited dropped support for the only Bitcoin chain which is brave enough to actually test out the vision of Bitcoin Unlimited in the wild.

@Norway @79b79aa8

Thank you. As I haven't contributed much except words, I think it will not be so much of a loss for BU.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Otherwise you'd take the BU client and maintain it to support BSV going forward.
apparently, no devs arr interested in maintaining a BSV compatible BU client. that's ok, and probably the best thing. if there needs to eventually be a hard fork off BSV in the far future, I'm sure it will spontaneously arise.

you will continue to bad-talk BU and disrupt it as much as you can.
you forget where the bad talk originated from; ABC devs resigning, then r/btc hair on fire, then BCH supporters more widely, largely due to you fanning the flames with talk of membership reset.

BU is really unrecognizable from when i helped found it. all the talk about "not enough demand", fud like "but atmp" , "when we allow it", focusing on personalities when there's ample evidence we can fork from CSW if and when we have to, etc, don't sit well with me which is why I didn't bother to rejoin. I think BU is lost and will never be allowed to participate in ABC dev. at least @theZerg and @Peter R, which is a shame.

ABC does not set the limit.
you know this is bullshit because of all the talk that ABC issues to justify the 32mb cap. @jtoomim is renowned for this. Miners don't dare to reconfigure out of fear of breaking something. as a result, they and everyone else securing the network gets dumbed down and lazy with out of date software that doesn't push them to their economic or technical maximums. we've seen all sorts of examples of how BSV block explorers and merchants have scrambled to up their game in response to 128mb blocks. this is healthy.

There is also nothing stopping another client (BU, or maybe Bitcoin D-E-F) from implementing tech that can reliable achiever greater block sizes than ABC can produce and propagate across the network.
that's already happened with BSV.
You are fully mistaken in your view of ABC as the "dictator of Bitcoin Cash".
lol, @dgenr8, lead dev of XT just proved you wrong. as well, @theZerg is nowhere to be found in ABC video chats or dev afaict. this is from disagreements with @deadalnix over philosophy and key issues like GROUP.

it's all good, true big blockists still have GCBU.
[doublepost=1557496788][/doublepost]
Thanks. Your argument that ABC does not dictate blocksize limit is the same Core-argument we waded through over and over. "Everybody is free to run the software he wants", and so on.

I did not say I focus on BSV. I think they have by far the best concept, but I am very worried about the problems an overfocusation on CSW being Satoshi has caused. In general, I think the state of "Big Block Bitcoin" is very miserable these days.

I was just not able to stand the fact that Bitcoin Unlimited dropped support for the only Bitcoin chain which is brave enough to actually test out the vision of Bitcoin Unlimited in the wild.

@Norway @79b79aa8

Thank you. As I haven't contributed much except words, I think it will not be so much of a loss for BU.
you are free to leave BU but we will let you know when you're "allowed" to leave GCBU :)
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
Five days to BCH hardfork.

The mysterious "Satoshi Nakamoto" miner seems to be mining BSV now.
https://sv.coin.dance/blocks

Yet, the amount of "unknown" miners on BCH is 32.64%.
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks

What is going on?

EDIT:
Are the exchanges prepared for a potential split? Do they need new secret patches? Who keeps the ticker if a few exchanges list both splits? The original, or the hardfork? Is Emil Oldenburg putting on his military uniform again? So many questions ...
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I did not say I focus on BSV.
Fair enough, that might have been my interpretation from your actions.
Whatever you decide to focus on, I wish you the best of success with it.
Obviously I disagree w/ your assessment and I think you have made one, if not several, major errors in your analysis of the situation.

Thank you. As I haven't contributed much except words
In terms of supporting the scaling cause, you have done and achieved a lot. For that I thank you, and I hope I'll get around to reading a translation of your book someday ;-)
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
I have this bad feeling alot of BU members sold off all their BSV. seriously. your's remains equally hedged.
 

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
Sorry to see you go.
You were a voice of reason but unfortunately the extremes were to strong.

Like you I don't understand why the BU devs didn't embrace the BSV chain where they could show off with BUs superior block propagation and validation.

On the BSV chain where the protocol is fixed an implementation like BU could thrive and have a spot in the hall of fame.

On the BCH chain I see BU fighting with the ABC devs over who gets the next feature in.
We have seen how that played out for BU in the past.
 
Last edited:

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
"On the BCH chain I see BU fighting with the ABC devs over who gets the next feature in.
We have seen how that played out for BU in the past."

Without BU working directly inline with ABC's goals and directions, I have some concern that these resources are to be wasted in developing unsanctioned and thus unusable tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cypherdoc

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
unsanctioned =//=> unusable

unsanctioned =//=> unused

unused =//=> unusable


=//=> here means "does not imply"
[doublepost=1557501907,1557501281][/doublepost]
apparently, no devs arr interested in maintaining a BSV compatible BU client. that's ok, and probably the best thing. if there needs to eventually be a hard fork off BSV in the far future, I'm sure it will spontaneously arise.
you forget where the bad talk originated from; ABC devs resigning, then r/btc hair on fire, then BCH supporters more widely, largely due to you fanning the flames with talk of membership reset.
wow, historical revisionism much. Forgetting about all the SV trash talk and lawsuits against (at the time) BU members. Too convenient, and identifies clearly which camp you are in now.
BU is really unrecognizable from when i helped found it. all the talk about "not enough demand", fud like "but atmp" , "when we allow it", focusing on personalities when there's ample evidence we can fork from CSW if and when we have to, etc, don't sit well with me which is why I didn't bother to rejoin. I think BU is lost and will never be allowed to participate in ABC dev. at least @theZerg and @Peter R, which is a shame.
You are drawing talk to CSW to avoid discussion about technical realities. "Aussie mad bad" is the standard escape when people try to criticize the BSV approach on rational grounds.
lol, @dgenr8, lead dev of XT just proved you wrong.
wait, where?
as well,
@theZerg is nowhere to be found in ABC video chats or dev afaict. this is from disagreements with @deadalnix over philosophy and key issues like GROUP.
So, Bitcoin is permissionless but apparently deadalnix is stopping BU?
I smell a logical turd.
it's all good, true big blockists still have GCBU.
I'm comforted :D
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
wow, historical revisionism much. Forgetting about all the SV trash talk and lawsuits against (at the time) BU members. Too convenient, and identifies clearly which camp you are in now.
what you call trash talk is just healthy debate right here in this thread. and what lawsuits are you talking about against BU members? @deadalnix? lol, that guy didn't contribute anything for BU, let alone keep us in the loop. all he did was flame out with a very public BU resign meant to damage BU. You're delusional.
You are drawing talk to CSW to avoid discussion about technical realities.
what realities? the ones where BSV has created multiple blocks far larger than any ABC dev could imagine? what makes you think you guys can determine the "allowed" limit? seriously. you'd have to be God to know all the developments going on behind backdoors for validation and propagation. plus, this is an economic system that incentivizes this dev, which money flows you can't possibly predict. the only logical strategy is to unleash the unknown innovation. you're a saboteur.
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
The United American Corp suit was launched after BSV split from BCH.
At the time I believe Amaury and Shammah were still BU members.

It's clear that the plaintiffs are not BCH supporters, otherwise they would be suing the BSV side.
 

Members online

No members online now.