Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bsdtar]

I saw Calin cooing about poaching these with guessed pre images (?) the other day; the glorified ANYONECANSPEND left over debacle from the still only 42% used segwit from core. r/btc cheers because it was couched as stealing from the attacker. now, I can't tell who's been stealing them and Calin seems to have gone quiet. the original owners, centralized miners, or anonymous miners, who is it?

Not exactly. I'll try to clarify with what I have understood so far.

An attacker (kiarahpromise) created never-confirmed transactions that exploited the sigop counting bug. The attacker himself reverted the attack, making his coins unspent again. Calin then grabbed these coins, as they were anyone-can-spend.

In parallel, an unknown miner took a bunch of "segwit" coins, because these too were anyone-can-spend. BTC.TOP and BTC.COM allegedly colluded and caused a 2-blocks-deep reorg to revert those transactions. Minutes later BTC.TOP itself mined transactions that returned those same "segwit" coins to their bch-equivalent addresses. If true, this means those "segwit" coins were not anyone-can-spend but actually BTC.TOP-can-spend. Unknown miner just didn't get the memo.

The attacker provided arguments that indeed a collusion took place. His arguments seem solid and basically no one is denying. The current narrative is that "this collusion was great for BCH, honest miners defended it from a theft". Yet Calin didn't steal anyone-can-spend coins, he just took for himself.

I really suggest you read the attacker's report, it's quite interesting. Anyway, what a shitshow indeed!

where what I assume was removing technical debt via CLEANSTACK last November

Afaik cleanstack hasn't simplified any code. It's just another transaction malleability incomplete fix that BCH is enforcing for god knows what reason.

Richy_T: Could you provide a short list of your reasons if you decide not to write that article? I'm interested.

 

[freetrader]

for its part, BSV mining is fully centralized. the difference is that BSV is not pretending to be ready for trade

I think you just made my day. Top kek.

Please circulate this to the members of the bComm association or whatever the fuck it's called.

when they are through with their protocol and scaling goals, BSV might have to consider changing the POW algorithm, in order to reboot mining

Oh, hadn't seen that one on the BSV roadmap, but it makes sense after all the "a chip is being designed" stuff.

So, good luck.
[doublepost=1558255533][/doublepost]

From early after the launch of BCH, the attitude of the project leaders didn't fill me with a good feeling. When a project is that small (or even as big as BTC. But bear in mind that Bitcoin is bigger still), the people in charge (read: with their hands on the levers of power) count and personalities, sadly, are important. That's why I have so much trouble with the idea of getting behind BSV with how I feel about CSW. You guys who believe he's on the up-and-up, you should certainly be all-in but I don't and I just can't go for the whole "personalities don't matter" this early in the game. Keep cranking it up and maybe I'll see in another 18 months or so.

I am considering signing up for medium and writing a "Why I am leaving Bitcoin Cash" article though.

Up to the end of your first paragraph, I thought the result would be a ""Why I am leaving Bitcoin SV" post.

But if you do decide to leave Bitcoin Cash, are you also going to resign from Bitcoin Unlimited? If not, why not?

 

[Zarathustra]

You guys who believe he's on the up-and-up, you should certainly be all-in but I don't and I just can't go for the whole "personalities don't matter" this early in the game. Keep cranking it up and maybe I'll see in another 18 months or so.

Yes, and you guys who believe he's a fraud and has nothing to do with the creation of Bitcoin you should certainly be all-out but I don't and I just can't go for the whole "personalities matter" this early in the game.

 

[torusJKL]

But if you do decide to leave Bitcoin Cash, are you also going to resign from Bitcoin Unlimited? If not, why not?

Why would he resign from BU should he decide to leave BCH.
Since when is is BU and all it's members married to the BCH chain?

BU is an idea and not a specific chain.
Ironically BCH does not really fit the BU idea that much anymore.
BSV is by far a better fit.

 

[bitsko]

Empty blocks, anyone can spend getting spent by anyone; some of these BCH fork changes resulting in bugs and unexpected situations.

What's next?

 

[freetrader]

Ironically BCH does not really fit the BU idea that much anymore.
BSV is by far a better fit.

Bitcoin Cash (including BU as a client) forked to keep Bitcoin working as peer to peer electronic cash.

Bitcoin SV forked from ABC, apparently to construct some MetaNet.

Now SV supporters are on this forum saying "BSV is not pretending to be ready for trade."

How is BSV a better fit for BU if it's not even ready for trade?

As a foundational principle, we assert that Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run and the rules they vote for with their hash power. This project seeks to remove existing practical barriers to stakeholders expressing their views in these ways.

The majority of BU members voted that the BU code should support the Bitcoin Cash currency.
This is the most direct expression of what the membership thinks is a better fit for BU, and does not match with your view, although it acknowledges your right to define Bitcoin as you wish, in Article 1, II.:

II. Governed by the code we run

The guiding principle for Bitcoin Unlimited is that the evolution of the network is decided by the code people freely choose to run.

Same as people chose to no longer maintain BU on Core (BTC), we chose to no longer support BSV.

IV. Values and beliefs: adoption is paramount

Bitcoin should freely scale with demand through a market-based process.

Bitcoin Cash is ready for trade - and thereby adoption.

Also, it supports a free market process, whereas SV's leadership (de facto controlling miners + developers nChain and CoinGeek) have expressed on many occasion that they wish a strong role for intermediaries to interfere with the free market.

Not only that, but they have directly threatened to attack others in the crypto ecosystem, impede their free trade etc.

It is clear to me why BU membership voted against continued support of the BSV chain.
Because BSV is NOT a better fit for BU.

 

[Richy_T]

Richy_T: Could you provide a short list of your reasons if you decide not to write that article? I'm interested.

I could make a list but there would be a single root cause behind every item that could be summed up with one word and that is "hubris".

 

[Griffith]

Why would he resign from BU should he decide to leave BCH.
Since when is is BU and all it's members married to the BCH chain?

BU is an idea and not a specific chain.
Ironically BCH does not really fit the BU idea that much anymore.
BSV is by far a better fit.

Even if it were true (which it is not) that BSV is a better fit for BU, none of the BU devs are currently willing to code a client to follow the SV chain.
Without finding some developers to support SV there is no point in discussing it.

 

[Richy_T]

Up to the end of your first paragraph, I thought the result would be a ""Why I am leaving Bitcoin SV" post.

But if you do decide to leave Bitcoin Cash, are you also going to resign from Bitcoin Unlimited? If not, why not?

To leave BSV, I would first have to be a part of it.

As to leaving BU, I don't believe it is strongly tied to BCH but is more of an idea which I still fully support. I was never really a very active member so I think I could still sincerely vote in the interests of the project (which is more than Amaury did, I'll remind you).
[doublepost=1558270063][/doublepost]

Ironically BCH does not really fit the BU idea that much anymore.

I kinda feel like BU is that guy who wants to hang around with a group but that group is always arranging to go places and not telling the guy even though we're doing our best to dress like the guys in the group and buying them presents and stuff.

BU has a problem of where we fit into the puzzle right now. I don't like it much but I think we'll just have to accept it's that way for a while. The only other option is yet another fork and I don't think that's a good option at this stage.

 

[freetrader]

@Richy_T :

I don't follow your logic.

On the one hand you say you can leave Bitcoin Cash (presumably considering yourself a part of it), on the other hand you say you could not leave BSV because you're not a part of it.

Everyone who held BCH at the time BSV split got the same amount of BSV fork coins, no?

How are you "not a part of it"?

As to leaving BU, I don't believe it is strongly tied to BCH but is more of an idea which I still fully support. I was never really a very active member so I think I could still sincerely vote in the interests of the project

BU is tied to whatever its membership expresses.

You clearly seem dissatisfied with the direction of the project now that it no longer supports BSV.
Enough to declare that you might write a letter "leaving Bitcoin Cash".
Can you explain that?
Would you put some resources towards creating a BU version that supports BSV?

 

[79b79aa8]

 

[cypherdoc]

Empty blocks, anyone can spend getting spent by anyone; some of these BCH fork changes resulting in bugs and unexpected situations.

What's next?

the list is getting long in the tooth
[doublepost=1558274499][/doublepost]

Now SV supporters are on this forum saying "BSV is not pretending to be ready for trade."

can you provide proof of this? I saw one comment from one person on this.

 

[Richy_T]

Everyone who held BCH at the time BSV split got the same amount of BSV fork coins, no?

How are you "not a part of it"?

I have some Czech Koruna in a drawer somewhere but I'm not part of the Czech economy. I assume I still have some Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond too.
[doublepost=1558275970][/doublepost]

You clearly seem dissatisfied with the direction of the project now that it no longer supports BSV.

Not at all. It has nothing to do with supporting BSV or not. I am certainly not dissatisfied with BU, I just think it's having a bit of a crisis of identity at the moment (and that's only to be expected). I don't see BU as identical with Bitcoin Cash.

I have no idea why you are apparently starting to paint me with the "Team BSV" brush. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I think that should be fairly apparent from my post history. You especially should know better than this "You're either for me or against me" bullshit.

 

[freetrader]

I kinda feel like BU is that guy who wants to hang around with a group but that group is always arranging to go places and not telling the guy even though we're doing our best to dress like the guys in the group and buying them presents and stuff.

BU has a problem of where we fit into the puzzle right now. I don't like it much but I think we'll just have to accept it's that way for a while. The only other option is yet another fork and I don't think that's a good option at this stage.

Call it post votum regret, @Richy_T .

The first thing you do with your continued membership is mull about writing a letter about leaving Bitcoin Cash and casually raise the idea of another fork of Bitcoin Cash. Strange.
[doublepost=1558281728][/doublepost]

I have no idea why you are apparently starting to paint me with the "Team BSV" brush. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I think that should be fairly apparent from my post history. You especially should know better than this "You're either for me or against me" bullshit.

It's actually not apparent from your post history, that's why I'm probing.
Your answers are mostly on the fence and you tend to evade some direct questions.

I wrote a whole post about why I disagree that BSV is a better fit for BU.

I wonder what direction you see for Bitcoin Unlimited.

 

[cypherdoc]

How is BSV a better fit for BU if it's not even ready for trade?

it is ready for trade. capacity exceeds any other coin. by far.

 

[sgbett]

Bitcoin SV forked from ABC, apparently to construct some MetaNet.

OP_PUSHDATA_4

"some MetaNet" isn't a new thing, it's been the intention since day 1, all the evidence is there for those that care to connect the dots.

Metanet only works if you bootstrap it by first establishing some value in bitcoin as p2p digital cash.

So when you say:

Bitcoin Cash (including BU as a client) forked to keep Bitcoin working as peer to peer electronic cash.

You are missing the fact that MetaNet and p2p digital cash are not mutually exclusive. Metanet does not preclude bitcoin from being p2p digital cash, it absolutely relies on it.

Metanet and p2p Digital cash are *symbiotic*.
[doublepost=1558292012][/doublepost](to complete the symbioses, bitcoin relies on metanet becoming ubiquitous in order to cement the primacy of bitcoin as the singular digital p2p cash, in order to maximise its security through capturing all of the hash rate)

 

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin Cash (including BU as a client) forked to keep Bitcoin working as peer to peer electronic cash.

Bitcoin SV forked from ABC, apparently to construct some MetaNet.

Peer to peer cash on a metanet is better than peer to peer on a cripple net.

"Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of"

The majority of BU members voted that the BU code should support the Bitcoin Cash currency.
This is the most direct expression of what the membership thinks is a better fit for BU, and does not match with your view, although it acknowledges your right to define Bitcoin as you wish, in Article 1, II.:

Same as people chose to no longer maintain BU on Core (BTC), we chose to no longer support BSV.

In theory, BU is a member thing, but in reality, it's not. @cypherdoc , the pioneer of the BU movement, is not even a member. BU is a philosophy, where a single influencer may have more impact on Bitcoin than twenty passive members combined. It's not one member - one vote (PoS). It's proof of work.

Not only that, but they have directly threatened to attack others in the crypto ecosystem, impede their free trade etc.

And then it was the North Corean miners (BTC miners) who attacked the Bitcoin Cash chain.

 

[bitsko]

metanet has a lot more going for it than mediumnet

 

[rocks]

removing technical debt is Dunning Kruger. this go around we see examples of how adding things (OP CDSV) caused the sigops counting bug and now where what I assume was removing technical debt via CLEANSTACK last November inadvertently locked up mistaken BCH sends to Segwit addresses

The idea that the "reference client" defines a chain's rules is what is broken. This is 1000x more true on chains based on bitcoind which is an utter mess. Trying to fix technical debt by cleaning up the client is a dead end path for many reasons.

Moving to a model where the protocol's rules are defined in a published spec is the only real path forward IMHO. This not only solves existing technical debt, it also solves the centralized development and "lead developer" problem that has been at the root of all of Bitcoin's problems. No one should control a chain because they control a github repository. A static published spec does that, and frees others to develop their own (much better) clients.

 

[cypherdoc]

And then it was the North Corean miners (BTC miners) who attacked the Bitcoin Cash chain.

apparently twice now, with the Prohashing orphan.