Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

Deleting the ability to import private keys is a horrible design decision. This is one of the most important features of wallets.

 

[Zarathustra]

https://gtcistudy.com/the-gtci-index/

 

[Zarathustra]

deadalnix, toomim, pacia. With those leaders you don't need enemies. North Corean reverse development reloaded:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bnu4t1/is_it_possible_to_spam_the_mainnet/

 

[Norway]

An artificial developer defined limit to max blocksize - dynamic or not - is called a DDoS (Developer Denial of Service) attack when ran on main net.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@freetrader @imaginary_username


Don't you get an eerie feeling when reading quotes like the one norway posted above?
deadalnix is now using the same stupid arguments as luke-jr.

And don't you see that we are going the exact same path as before, just with a (in the big picture view) slightly higher limit?

@Norway I had the same idea for a BU coin. Seriously, this isn't such a bad idea.

 

[Norway]

ABC broke: Confirmed
(You split, we bankrupt you...)

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

oh oh everything is there again.

- we'll fix the limit when we need to
- we have this magic solution we are working on now which is much more important
- you don't have a say because you are not a dev
- we have to be thankful to devs because they are so great
- deadalnix/greg would never do anything bad for bch/btc because he is an ancap/cypherpunk
- scaling is not a priority right now and who are you to tell devs what they should work on

...

I don't think I'm in the mood for another round of "blocksize debate". Just waiting for "store of value" to pop up...

 

[torusJKL]

You forgot the most important one:

- BCH is open source, everyone can contribute (but we will not merge if we don't like it)
[doublepost=1557749145][/doublepost]

Just waiting for "store of value" to pop up...

I don't think we will see the store of value only argument from BCH.
But they like BTC have decided to be one thing (P2P cash) and fight everyone who wants to do more.
Permissionless as long as it is within the permissioned view of the BCH devs.

 

[Zarathustra]

"Code monkeys"....
Some of them believe it was one of them who created this unique multidisciplinary project.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/bn9nvx/here_is_the_new_narrative_for_once_craig_proves/
[doublepost=1557755106][/doublepost]
Will the Bitcoin.com wallet have to KYC if they offer shuffling (laundering)?

Roger doesn't care ...

 

[sken]

Only because BU doesn't have a BSV compatible client anymore doesn't mean that it can't be involved in BSV.

shilling and sowing division is "being involved" now.

You are a late adopter. You don't understand BU. BU is not the client.

you are in denial lmao. without a client you are just LARPING at this point. im sure it can get confusing for you since thats all you and the rest of the BSV supporters have been doing

I'll ask you the same thing. there's now a clear split, so why are you here?

more denial. BCH won (again). BU pledged to support BCH and not BSV. its over

A dynamic max blocksize means the blocks can grow to the max size miners can handle. This is the same as not having a max blocksize.

Some devs are too "smart" to understand this.

its obvious that the end result of this is centralization around a cartel and not competition. it has happened so many times before.

Some useless dead weight like yourself are too "smart" to understand this.

deadalnix, toomim, pacia. With those leaders you don't need enemies. North Corean reverse development reloaded:

unlike north korea, chris has no power to force you. thats just his opinion. which i think is correct. why we would want to hinder the biz that happens in mainnet just to score some social media points?

ABC broke: Confirmed
(You split, we bankrupt you...)

huh. i thought abc was being funded by roger and jihan. which is ironic considering that BU is almost entirely funded by Roger.

torus, zarathustra, you are just sounding like whinny nagging divorcees at this point. bua bua roger doesnt care! glad he doesnt care about complying with a tyranical system. the entire purpose of by bitcoin exists. not to be satans money system

 

[Richy_T]

who defines how fast it should respond? or how fast it should retract? even dynamic limits suffer from bias.

A fair question to which there may not be a solid answer and there's undoubtedly more than one way to do it. We could perhaps discuss what the aims of such a scheme would be. Ideally, I would say that delaying transactions which have paid the minimum fee for one block is OK (in a huge increase in transactions scenario), two blocks much less so. The scheme should make it quite expensive to attack the network for sustained lengths of time. Organic growth should *never* be penalized.
[doublepost=1557767714][/doublepost]

Yes, Zarathustra's razor. Since @Zangelbert Bingledack - one of the deepest DeepMinds in the Bitcoin environment - researched the case deeper than anybody else here, you would have to be ignorant not to give it a significant probability.

So which is it to be? Should we support BSV despite believing the personality involved is a fraudster or does supporting BSV mean implicit acceptance that CSW is our lord and savior?
[doublepost=1557767879][/doublepost]

Been swapping coins in recent times as exchange rates are good. Some coins have not even arrived in BSV wallet and no have to start organizing again as the ability to sweep private keys will be discontinued. Not a question if but how soon, handcash leading the way. As it stands paper wallets are the best choice to store SV coins (as i see it). Biometric hardware wallets is the end of privacy on the blockchain.
A monster of unimaginably magnitude is on the way.

In theory, you could construct a sweep transaction outside of the wallet and transmit it to the network but that loses a lot of convenience.

 

[Zarathustra]

shilling and sowing division is "being involved" now.

It's obvious that YOU are the divider. That's why nearly nobody voted for your infiltration into BU.

you are in denial lmao. without a client you are just LARPING at this point. im sure it can get confusing for you since thats all you and the rest of the BSV supporters have been doing

We have a client. We always support the client which scales best and which doesn't implement junk code. That's BSV at the moment.

unlike north korea, chris has no power to force you.

That's correct. He has just the power to force YOU. You are predestined to follow his BS.

thats just his opinion. which i think is correct. why we would want to hinder the biz that happens in mainnet just to score some social media points?

You cannot test real world on testnet. Should be obvious.
If not:


@Richy_T
So which is it to be? Should we support BSV despite believing the personality involved is a fraudster or does supporting BSV mean implicit acceptance that CSW is our lord and savior?

If it turns out that he is Satoshi and you still believe him to be a fraudster, it's your decision whether you want support Bitcoin or not.

I'm just guessing that @theZerg is not convinced that he is not part/main part of Satoshi and that this is the reason why he did not vote.

 

[Zarathustra]

Good news for Roger.

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader @imaginary_usernameDon't you get an eerie feeling when reading quotes like the one norway posted above?
deadalnix is now using the same stupid arguments as luke-jr.

Well, I agree with him that a stress test on mainnet to hit the current blocksize limit is counterproductive.

There's work to be put in to raise the limit by improving a whole bunch of systems. These systems can perform their own "testnet" performance tests to ensure they are able to handle mainnet peak load.

Just because past testnet tests didn't show up issues that were only found in the September stress test on mainnet, only means that careful enough attention was not paid on testnet, or that the code paths that differ between testnet and mainnet need to be reconsidered.

This is my opinion - you're still free to spend your money to stress Bitcoin Cash on mainnet, if you feel that's the best way to invest it.

 

[freetrader]

oh oh everything is there again.

No, I think most of what you raise are not actual BCH developer arguments but those put forward by its detractors.

- we'll fix the limit when we need to

Nobody is saying the ceiling needs to be hit before we raise it.
The limit was raised to 32MB when a fraction of 8MB was not even used. Just as a historical point. (that it wasn't tested well enough at the time is another one).

- we have this magic solution we are working on now which is much more important

Not sure what you are referring to here, if you mean one of the dynamic proposals that have been made, then they are (a) not magic and (b) not properly evaluated yet. It takes time especially when people are not helping. But maybe you are working on helping SV get to 2TB blocks by the end of the year or something /s

- you don't have a say because you are not a dev

Who said that? I haven't heard that from BCH devs.

- we have to be thankful to devs because they are so great

Nah, we have to get off our asses to help them or incentivize them if we want something to be implemented with high priority. Otherwise, them spending their free time scaling Bitcoin Cash OR NOT isn't something which complaining about is going to affect much.
How you go about incentivizing them is another matter.
Supporting a competing client may even be one way of achieving such aims.

- deadalnix/greg would never do anything bad for bch/btc because he is an ancap/cypherpunk

Infantile argument which is a strawman in this context. No-one's claiming that.

- scaling is not a priority right now and who are you to tell devs what they should work on

Who indeed. If you are someone with legitimate reason to push for prioritizing this while capacity exceeds demand by > x 100 , then by all means make a solid case, in public.

If you *are* a dev, or a tester, or working on infrastructure, then you might be capable of helping directly. Even if you can just donate to projects, you can help them achieve their milestones.

You can also put up bounties for specific objectives that you'd like them to reach, and guide their behavior in this way (if they are motivated to pursue your bounties).

I don't think I'm in the mood for another round of "blocksize debate".

Me neither. We are now *competing* with those who claim they can scale Bitcoin best.
Do look around and re-evaluate from time to time which coins you feel are making real progress.

 

[Norway]

I want BCH to fragment, split and degrade itself to something that is not sound money because I want bitcoin to win.

I don't have bad intent when I want BCH to split. I want bitcoin to win.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

shilling and sowing division is "being involved" now.




you are in denial lmao. without a client you are just LARPING at this point. im sure it can get confusing for you since thats all you and the rest of the BSV supporters have been doing



more denial. BCH won (again). BU pledged to support BCH and not BSV. its over



its obvious that the end result of this is centralization around a cartel and not competition. it has happened so many times before.

Some useless dead weight like yourself are too "smart" to understand this.





unlike north korea, chris has no power to force you. thats just his opinion. which i think is correct. why we would want to hinder the biz that happens in mainnet just to score some social media points?



huh. i thought abc was being funded by roger and jihan. which is ironic considering that BU is almost entirely funded by Roger.

torus, zarathustra, you are just sounding like whinny nagging divorcees at this point. bua bua roger doesnt care! glad he doesnt care about complying with a tyranical system. the entire purpose of by bitcoin exists. not to be satans money system

I never block people for arguments, but I found out that my version of the internet gets much more better when I block a certain kind of behavior and people whose trolling is not funny but only impolite. Goodbye
[doublepost=1557780940][/doublepost]

oh oh everything is there again.

- we'll fix the limit when we need to
- we have this magic solution we are working on now which is much more important
- you don't have a say because you are not a dev
- we have to be thankful to devs because they are so great
- deadalnix/greg would never do anything bad for bch/btc because he is an ancap/cypherpunk
- scaling is not a priority right now and who are you to tell devs what they should work on

...

I don't think I'm in the mood for another round of "blocksize debate". Just waiting for "store of value" to pop up...

This was obvious in October.

If you want a bu coin, you want bu to be bsv but without Craig.

I can fully understand the problems so many people have with Craig. I for myself consider many of the things he does highly problematic, both for the general chances of bsv as well as of my personal chances to build on bsv.

Crypto is 99 percent marketing, and Craig is a turbo machine in anti marketing.

But given that he created the coin you want, you should acknowledge that he has his value.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Well, I agree with him that a stress test on mainnet to hit the current blocksize limit is counterproductive.

There's work to be put in to raise the limit by improving a whole bunch of systems. These systems can perform their own "testnet" performance tests to ensure they are able to handle mainnet peak load.

If you remove the mechanism for competition you lose the whole capitalist process that drives the relentless professionalization Bitcoin needs.

Miners competing aggressively and getting orphaned for oversteps or incompetence is the only plausible means anyone has ever proposed for how Bitcoin infrastructure could end up scaling to the elite levels of performance needed to be the backbone of the world's financial system.

Miners may even find it's better not to tell others what blocksize they'll orphan, instead letting the ambiguity punish the overaggressive while still rewarding those who push the envelope prudently. This causes blocks to be orphaned, and that's a good thing. Users are unaffected as long as transaction incentives are handled properly, another set of miner (non-protocol) rules.

Those who believe Bitcoin's incentives are toward a mesh network rather than a near-complete graph (especially those who think those hashless wonders Core calls "fullnodes" matter) will puzzle at this. The most economically clueless may even puzzle at why these incentive structures cannot be tested out on testnet. However, they should be puzzling harder about how Bitcoin could ever possibly reach world-class sophistication via volunteer developer committee agreement. Has any world-leading system ever come about this way?

This is just the calculation problem all over again. Or for lighter viewing, watch or read I, Pencil again while considering that the size of blocks should be no more planned by committee than the price of graphite:

 

[Richy_T]

I'm just guessing that @theZerg is not convinced that he is not part/main part of Satoshi and that this is the reason why he did not vote.

Anything is possible and he can certainly speak for himself. He has always taken a fairly neutral position, however and I think that's enough to explain his stance without having to posit him believing in grumpkins and snarks.

 

[cypherdoc]

you simply cannot argue with people who take this position. they're extremists who insist on being deaf and blind:

[doublepost=1557784483,1557783804][/doublepost]

more denial. BCH won (again). BU pledged to support BCH and not BSV. its over

it's fun dealing with folks like you. delusional and cocky.