Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitsko]

Good point zarathustra.

I want bitcoin to be unlimited.

BSV is the best attempt at such a goal.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, Bitcoin Unlimited is a vision that is advertised by the users of the mother of all Bitcoin threads. This BU movement is much older than the BU client. Until recently, the BU client mirrored the BU vision. Tempi passati ...

Until @Christoph Bergmann doesn't leave our vision, he doesn't actually leave BU.

 

[Norway]

Pop the champaign.

 

[cypherdoc]

Chris Pacia hard at work,

https://honest.cash/cpacia/bsv-is-not-the-original-bitcoin-4327/

 

[Richy_T]

@rocks the way I heard it, about 1/3 of the population was loyal to the crown, 1/3 were for rebellion and 1/3 were indifferent. Similar numbers played out in this state in the civil war.

It truly is a shame but may have been inevitable. If you look at the famous thread about block size increase, the fault lines were already in place.

I think the current BCH/BSV split is not really about the block size, despite what some would say. It's more about the control that the ABC team is exercising. I believe those on the BCH are overwhelmingly still in favor of bigger blocks, it's just the approach that's in question.

 

[Zarathustra]

The Game Changer

This is the beginning of the first open and transparent gaming network. Interconnected code that starts the ready player, one gaming multiverse.

Games will become pieces of a whole, pieces tied together through transactions linking to other transactions all valued by someone. New economies will form with real monetary value attached to the games as well as the players. Games become data, and data represents you, all permanently stored on the Bitcoin SV blockchain.

Stay tuned my friends…We are just getting started.

https://medium.com/cryptofights/esports-is-now-ready-to-be-disrupted-d582f04f3b27

 

[Zarathustra]

The creator of this thread is absolutely right. If the BSV lead devs (@shadders, @Otaci et al.) begin to add junk code (ridiculous default limit, PoS BS etc.) into the software as the BCH lead devs (deadalnix, chris pacia et al.) did, we can fork again and maintain Satoshi's Vision. I bet @shadders and @Otaci won't go rogue.

 

[Norway]

I think the current BCH/BSV split is not really about the block size, despite what some would say. It's more about the control that the ABC team is exercising. I believe those on the BCH are overwhelmingly still in favor of bigger blocks, it's just the approach that's in question.

I think XT (RIP) and the BCH wing in BU dislike the control the ABC team is exercising at their expense. They want the same power. The power to dictate the protocol.

ABC want to be dictators and decide how the protocol should change. But they don't want to be seen as dictators. That's why they accept proposals like DSV (with their own fingerprints on it) and have these developer meetings online. They have this unique position because miners say in private that they support them. At least, that's the perception.

BU(BCH)/XT want an oligarchy, a committee where engineers discuss, negotiate and find the "best" way for the protocol to change. They want as much influence in this committee as they can get, because they know that they are reasonable people and will listen to other people's arguments. In fact, they want to be dictators too, they just don't know it yet. They mistakenly believe Craig Wright - the inventor of bitcoin - wants this power too.

BU(BSV) understand the governance problem. We see the benefit of a stable protocol. A system where no one has the power to change the protocol. By restoring the op codes, removing the limits and bringing bignum back, we have a brilliant protocol that can do almost everything and scale to the whole world.

Don't change the traffic rules. Just make the damn car go faster!
[doublepost=1557570733][/doublepost]... and don't add stupid breaks like this to the car:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip-add-configurable-parameter-to-delay-mining-transactions.23955/

 

[cypherdoc]

dumbass ABC shills like u/ Lovelyday think that an unlimited blocksize will result in constant reorgs. that's bullshit. we discussed this concept early on when we conceived BU. miners will get trained to "creep" their blocksizes higher based on a sampling of what's recently made it through the network. orphans, and to a lesser degree reorgs if at all, will provide feedback as to what can get accepted. the latest 128MB reorg that took place provided a healthy slap of the hand to the miners that blindly constructed and built upon too big a block (iirc, one 128 did make it through?) . I'm sure they've instituted lower soft limits to prevent this from happening again.
[doublepost=1557583037,1557582399][/doublepost]the analogy would be like taking a lambo from zero to 128 mph instantly. ignoring the fact that physics doesn't allow that, as a driver, a controlled acceleration to that max is preferred as you can maintain control on the way up. Any sudden lurches higher could cause total loss of control (orphan) as racecar drivers are known and prefer to be able to "feel" (creep) the road.

 

[cypherdoc]

unfortunately for BTC and BCH, BSV is the lambo.

 

[bitsko]

BTC is a bicycle with a sidecar and BCH has a governor installed to prevent 'dangerous' speeds.

 

[Norway]

Anyone open to learning, should watch this fresh video:
https://streamanity.com/video/sdhii3QzSFnFXZ

EDIT:
CSW pulls out his hand gun to prove a point in the video interview.

[doublepost=1557587381][/doublepost]I'd like to see BCH split over this issue:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bn9cgt/community_motion_to_raise_bch_consensus_block/

 

[cypherdoc]

>I'd like to see BCH split over this issue

how dare you

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

lol, this is comedy gold ...

Toomim:

Setting the date for making a change without knowing whether that change will be safe is backwards. We should decide to increase the blocksize limit after we've shown it to be safe, not before. In the absence of test results showing it to be safe, no changes should be made.

That is exactly the reason why I left BU. In its old days BU was about getting rid of developer consensus and installing emergent consensus. As long as developers decide which limit is "save" and than set the blocksize limit, there is no emergent consensus, but the good old developer consensus.

And @molecular wants what BSV already has, but on BCH. Because BSV is bad and so on. This is the same line of thought that kept all the people who wants low fees and big blocks away from Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Unlimited: "Because bcash is scam, and Roger Ver is a scammer. We want it, but only when our team Core does it". Welcome back, good old fallacy of hating what you want and supporting what you don't want.

Best part is Amaury: He wants money and takes his chance to insult Bitcoin Unlimited. Like always.

What's necessary is enough funds to hire someone full time. ... We need more what Andrei call "right work". And it's only going to happen with long term sustained comitment. If we don't do this we just accumulate tech debt. This is what BU is doingfor instance. In my experience, this is leads to disasters when done for pieces of infrastructures.

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann
Sounds like ABC is running out of funds from China, just like the Wormhole team. My guess is that this happened to XT as well.

 

[cypherdoc]

>I'd like to see BCH split over this issue

ahahaha, @jtoomim right in there fighting it; "we don't know if it can handle it".

hey, u/ftrader, you need to get in there!
[doublepost=1557592265][/doublepost]

lol, this is comedy gold ...

Toomim:



That is exactly the reason why I left BU. In its old days BU was about getting rid of developer consensus and installing emergent consensus. As long as developers decide which limit is "save" and than set the blocksize limit, there is no emergent consensus, but the good old developer consensus.

And @molecular wants what BSV already has, but on BCH. Because BSV is bad and so on. This is the same line of thought that kept all the people who wants low fees and big blocks away from Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Unlimited: "Because bcash is scam, and Roger Ver is a scammer. We want it, but only when our team Core does it". Welcome back, good old fallacy of hating what you want and supporting what you don't want.

Best part is Amaury: He wants money and takes his chance to insult Bitcoin Unlimited. Like always.

why is Amaury always asking for money?
[doublepost=1557592476][/doublepost]here's another thing. BCH believes they have unanimity for blocksize increases in the future. even if it was true today (it's not), they can't stop trolls from disrupting that unanimity for nefarious reasons in the future. that's why I argue for this blocksize issue to be solved once and for all NOW mother fuckers.
[doublepost=1557592822,1557592140][/doublepost]who knows? I thought @jtoomim was supposed to be able top figure all this out? maybe emergent consensus really is a thing?

"Who knows, the data might show that the network is now capable of more than 64 MB. Or maybe less than 64 MB. Let's find out first."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bn9cgt/community_motion_to_raise_bch_consensus_block/

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc

why is Amaury always asking for money?

Why do you think? They're running out of money. Like Wormhole. And maybe XT.

that's why I argue for this blocksize issue to be solved once and for all NOW mother fuckers.

Sorry buddy, you're not getting it until february 4 next year. The nChain communist devs will only allow 2GB of blockspace from july to february

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/04/17/the-roadmap-to-genesis-part-1/

 

[cypherdoc]

And @molecular wants what BSV already has, but on BCH. Because BSV is bad and so on.

10:1 he sold

 

[sken]

Literally only pro BSV posts in here. is this GDBU some kind of pro BSV containment now. I dont understand whats the point of it since BU drop support of BSV now. This all seems like spam to me

 

[Norway]

@sken
You're the spam.
[doublepost=1557597690][/doublepost]I have a theory:
The "feature phone" in poor countries is a myth in bitcoin space.

My best guess is that poor people use a cheap chinese Android phones. But I don't know. That's why I ask: Do anyone here know if these cheap non-Android phones exist in a significant way anywhere in the world?

PS. If my theory/guess is correct, CoinText doesn't have a market.