Otaci
Member
- Jul 26, 2017
- 74
- 384
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
@satoshis_sockpuppet
About your question: I like the concept of bsv fundamentally more than that of bch, so the answer is likely no.
But for me the question is not really valid. I still hold my bch, and I will be happy when bch serves as a widely used mass transaction system for decentralized electronic cash. It already serves this case much better than btc.
About your question: I like the concept of bsv fundamentally more than that of bch, so the answer is likely no.
But for me the question is not really valid. I still hold my bch, and I will be happy when bch serves as a widely used mass transaction system for decentralized electronic cash. It already serves this case much better than btc.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Congratulations to @attila for making it to Bitcoin Association’s Bitcoin SV Hackathon final! See you in Toronto!
Here is his project: https://tonicpow.com/
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
All else aside, it seems that large groups suffer from short-termism. It wasn't possible to force the issue of the block size limit before blocks were full on BTC despite some major players pushing the issue. Although it seems quite likely that we will run into issues on BCH if something isn't done before we get there, that BSV has already removed it seems like it probably isn't enough on its own to overtake BCH. That would depend on more immediately relevant factors.
[doublepost=1558011218][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1558011218][/doublepost]
I don't hate alligators but I won't put my head in ones mouth.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
(i) there is no SV membership. (ii) what has been expressed, in norwegian hyperbole, is the preference for a unified bitcoin ledger long term. do you disagree with this goal?
these claims are controversial and unsupported. (i) it can be reasonably argued that it was BCH who forked. (ii) it is a stretch to conclude that anyone's initial intentions when the BCH split came about was to split again. what an outside observer could see was a mounting loss of patience with and confidence in the people who took over BCH development and their vision for bitcoin.
there are no members. like-minded people unsurprisingly vote similarly on either side of a vote, no need to insinuate collusion or conspiracy. this insinuation is undemocratic.
criticism is a form of action and a prerequisite for improvement.
pass
i thought that was what we were doing here?
but i agree BU should compete more aggressively. there should be explicitly stated hashpower share goals and plans to reach them.
Last edited:
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
no, because it does not clearly remove the fidelity effect.
no, because it fosters complacency about the urgency of removing capacity bottlenecks.
but it would be good to see arguments to the contrary, and reevaluate.
no, because it fosters complacency about the urgency of removing capacity bottlenecks.
but it would be good to see arguments to the contrary, and reevaluate.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
I know very well that it was that "contributing BU member" who startet the witchhunt (with your support). And then you are surprised that it backfired?
yes, let's please remember who it was that started messing with BU: @deadalnix & @micropresident rage quit BU dissing it's very existence. followed by rage on r/btc. followed by @Griffith @freetrader @sken @imaginaryusername agitating this thread and culminating with a buip to totally reset the membership to current officers and devs only, lol. and finally removing bsv from BU support.
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Yes, this is how it happened. I gave up the fight for bu when I realized the zerg doesnt want to support bsv any longer.
The messing of deadalnox with bu started back in 2016, after the zerg and ptschipper didn't listen to his advice about parval and after the zerg was not happy about the quality of deadalnix backporting contribution for which he was paid by I guess some miners.
This is just how I remember it, could be wrong or confused in the detail, don't take my word for it.
The messing of deadalnox with bu started back in 2016, after the zerg and ptschipper didn't listen to his advice about parval and after the zerg was not happy about the quality of deadalnix backporting contribution for which he was paid by I guess some miners.
This is just how I remember it, could be wrong or confused in the detail, don't take my word for it.
In an ideal world, how much is the ability to transact securely worth? Is it a fixed rate or percentage?
There are no fixed numbers since every trade has its own risk profile. Bitcoin dramatically reduces risk and settlement time across the board, which is a gigantic value add even if hard to quantify.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Interesting how BSV devs contribute more to this epic thread than the elected officers of Bitcoin Unlimited.
GCBU > BU
GCBU > BU
Jonathan Vaage
Member
- Nov 27, 2015
- 80
- 370
Bitcoin Unlimited collapsing. Gold collapsing Bitcoin up UP. (BUCGCBUU)
this continues to be Bitcoin's Big Kahuna:
"“The information exchanges.....enabled them to make informed market decisions on whether to sell or buy the currencies they had in their portfolios and when,” the Commission said in its report."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/eu-regulators-fine-five-banks-for-forex-rigging.html?__source=twitter|main
"“The information exchanges.....enabled them to make informed market decisions on whether to sell or buy the currencies they had in their portfolios and when,” the Commission said in its report."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/eu-regulators-fine-five-banks-for-forex-rigging.html?__source=twitter|main
The unwriter's latest release "Neon Genesis" seems to show CTOR was a bad idea. Whether or not transaction arrival data can be used for accounting purposes, it apparently does have a use, and it seems helpful for the ordering attestation to be covered by PoW.
https://medium.com/@_unwriter/neon-genesis-387fd2f122de
https://medium.com/@_unwriter/neon-genesis-387fd2f122de
sorry, but reading this again on the context of ABC's latest bug is just nauseating. @deadalnix is basically saying that if everyone had listened to him about allowing his continued tinkering (devs gotta dev) towards eliminating technical debt none of this would've happened. and as evidence of all the things that can go wrong if you don't, he disses (as @79b.. has already pointed out) BU and BSV even though they had nothing to do with this bug . hilarious.
Last edited:
Yes, it is ridiculous how trivial GB scale blocks are and yet how much of an issue it was turned into.
Modern database services easily handle >10GB/sec processing rates today. The last two products I've been involved with both easily exceed that throughput (although they are not cheap).
That is GB-per-second, to put it in comparison 2GB blocks comes to 0.0033GB/sec or more than a thousand times lower bandwidth, which is trivial. And it is even easier than that, most data in a 2GB block would be OP_RETURN data which is just copied and not processed (other than being hashed) and actual transaction data to process would comprise a fraction of the total.
GB sized blocks as a whole is a non-issue.
[doublepost=1558070691][/doublepost]
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
That's why I (and @cypherdoc) always say: GCBU is BU. You leave this forum (palaver tree), you leave BU.
http://dialoguedynamics.com/content/forum-d-apprentissage/modules/consensus-palabre/article/the-african-palaver-tradition-and
You split ...
you put it way better than I did; BU is not a client, it's a philosophy.
