Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

If there aren't enough "hands on deck" to clean up existing technical debt, why add more stuff every 6 months?

 

[cypherdoc]

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

yes, it seems like some very smart people see intra block time ordering to be be very useful if it can be accomplished according to Neon. I believe it can. in that sense, CTOR is a mistake. the tradeoff being potentially faster propagation and or validation. unless this can be compensated for with things like Teranode like it probably can.
[doublepost=1558075975][/doublepost]@deadalnix sounds conflicted, if not hypocritical.

 

[79b79aa8]

If there aren't enough "hands on deck" to clean up existing technical debt, why add more stuff every 6 months?

well, some hold the view that if you don't keep adding bells and whistles to your software, you are done for.

global finance on the microsoft word model.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh brother

 

[Zarathustra]

ETH is capped at 1 million txs/day; BTC at 0.5 million.

https://bitinfocharts.com/de/comparison/transactions-median_transaction_fee-eth.html#3m
https://bitinfocharts.com/de/comparison/transactions-median_transaction_fee-btc.html#3m

 

[freetrader]

Has Ryan considered that a sharding strategy might not need to be optimal, but good enough?
Like Bitcoin did not need to solve the byzantine general problem in order to provide a good enough solution that works off economic incentives?

I say, just BSV folks severely underestimating their competition when it comes to ETH and many others.

Meme Research lab might need to investigate on the transmission characteristics of this particular cognitive bias. It could be a sort of trickle-down effect.

 

[Zarathustra]

Since Unwriter and friends alone generate more innovation than all BTC-BCH developers combined, isn't it your side who underestimates the competition?

 

[Richy_T]

If there aren't enough "hands on deck" to clean up existing technical debt, why add more stuff every 6 months?

Gotta admit, when I first heard about regular scheduled forks, I envisioned it as being to ensure that obsolete clients would not be able to impede progress (as happened with BTC although that was 100% just a bogeyman) and not so it could be in continuous dev-astation.

 

[freetrader]

Gotta admit, when I first heard about regular scheduled forks, I envisioned it as being to ensure that obsolete clients would not be able to impede progress (as happened with BTC although that was 100% just a bogeyman) and not so it could be in continuous dev-astation.

Since BSV split off from Bitcoin Cash, BCH has now done the next hard fork without any "dev-astation".

Or am I wrong, @Richy_T ?

 

[Zarathustra]

BTC split off from Bitcoin with Segwit and capped capacity; then BCH split off from Bitcoin with an Avalanche of BS.

 

[79b79aa8]

the BCH hard fork prioritized schnorr signatures, which satisfies the needs of perhaps a few thousand privacy enthusiasts around the world (and saves a couple bytes!), over increasing capacity in order to attract institutional adoption. dev priorities in full glory.

 

[freetrader]

"institutional adoption"

I'm here to help build a peer to peer electronic cash network.

To be used first of all by people - who make up institutions. People come first.

 

[rocks]

BU is not a client, it's a philosophy.

Let's go farther than that, Bitcoin itself is not a client, it is a philosophy and agreed to communication protocol.

Like Bitcoin did not need to solve the byzantine general problem in order to provide a good enough solution that works off economic incentives?

Can you explain this. Bitcoin at its most fundamental level is a solution to the byzantine general problem, that is what PoW solved and without that solution Bitcoin is simply a common and uninteresting data structure.

 

[freetrader]

@rocks, I was being a bit imprecise and pedantic. Here is what I was trying to say:

Bitcoin does not solve the general Byzantine Generals Problem, because it makes a simplifying assumption which turned out to be Good Enough So Far (TM) and that is that <50% of the computational power is in the hands of the attackers.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

But the ceaseless whining on this thread is starting to put me off.

Fork the thread if you don't like it.

I don't think yet another fork of Bitcoin is a good idea (on the other hand I kinda like the idea of a BU fork..). I still think that we'll be in a better place if the miners decided to kick core to the curb. And I have a slight hope, that the miners will do that to ABC at an appropriate point this time.
And I think that miners and businesses need to see that deadalnix is running the same kind of shitshow core used to run.

XT closing up shop is ultimately XT's decision.

Yep. And we lost very able and experienced devs in the process. (the only C++ implementation that didn't have the 600 ms bug)..

SV already forked. Hopefully you guys are helping it just as much as you are circling around in this thread.

As I said above, I don't think another fork is or was a good idea. Including BSV.

no, because 6mo later, it could be reverted.

Well, that's the case for any coin. There is no magic 'no changes' switch.

@rocks
Bitcoin didn't solve the problem, it found an approximate solution. Which is good enough for the real world (or is it?).
There have been (too) many people in the space that can't live with or understand approximate solutions as solutions, e.g. Greg Maxwell..

So the BSV supporters in this forum have given up on BCH completely, which is understandable. But I don't understand why you are so involved in the day-to-day happenings of BCH then?
I still think that BCH has the best possibility of becoming what Bitcoin promised (getting more pessimistic as ABC gets powerful and scaling stalling again). I kept some BSV as a hedge (as I kept some BTC as well) against BCH but I don't follow or criticize the happenings in neither BSV or BTC because BCH is still my main bet (by far) and I don't think it's a good idea to just bash other coins...

 

[freetrader]

@satoshis_sockpuppet I think nobody in this thread has given up on Bitcoin (despite differences on what Bitcoin should be), and that's also why I see no need to "fork this thread".

Yep. And we lost very able and experienced devs in the process. (the only C++ implementation that didn't have the 600 ms bug)..

AFAIK both Tom and Dagur are still working on Bitcoin (Cash), even on BU.

How did we "lose" them? Are you talking about other XT devs?
[doublepost=1558110131][/doublepost]

I still think that we'll be in a better place if the miners decided to kick core to the curb.

Yeah, we can dream, but miners have to face economic reality.

 

[Richy_T]

Or am I wrong, @Richy_T ?

That depends on what I meant by dev-astation. Which I'm not entirely clear on myself But I was more alluding to being in a constant state of development, deterring other potential stakeholders (including investors, users and, yes, even devs) from getting involved.

My position is that a block size limit increase was priority 0. Avoiding SegWit was a nice bonus. All the other stuff, if positive (and many are, no doubt) come secondary to acceptance and adoption and should have played out on a larger longer scale. BCH needed to prove it was in safe hands and that definitely isn't clear in my book.

 

[79b79aa8]

Well, that's the case for any coin. There is no magic 'no changes' switch.

in an absolute sense, yes. but the possibility to introduce changes and having scheduled semiannual upgrades are two very different things.

Bitcoin didn't solve the problem, it found an approximate solution. Which is good enough for the real world (or is it?). There have been (too) many people in the space that can't live with or understand approximate solutions as solutions, e.g. Greg Maxwell..

or who think security is a binary affair.
speaking of which, i wish @Justus Ranvier popped back in here sometime.

So the BSV supporters in this forum have given up on BCH completely, which is understandable. But I don't understand why you are so involved in the day-to-day happenings of BCH then?

what @freetrader said ^. i suppose we're all trying to figure out how to balance our holdings. doing it unemotionally is no simple task.

 

[bitsko]

https://www.gate2chain.com/

 

[shilch]

the BCH hard fork prioritized schnorr signatures, which satisfies the needs of perhaps a few thousand privacy enthusiasts around the world (and saves a couple bytes!), over increasing capacity in order to attract institutional adoption. dev priorities in full glory.

There are methods to do treshold and multi-party ECDSA signatures which work on the elliptic curve used in bitcoin. Especially 2-of-2 multisig (a payment channel) is said to be simple - but I'm not a cryptographer and can't tell you whether it is. Wright claims that nChain has some patents related to this.
The more interesting property of Schnorr is that you can aggregate the input signatures, but they might not be valid signatures under signature law as has been pointed out and the aggregation basically destroys the power of script.
[doublepost=1558117170][/doublepost]Very clever stuff someone posted on the r/bitcoinsv subreddit: Bitcoin block propagation - Ultra compression
I hope that @shadders and @Otaci will look into it.