Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
My theory is that he only kept nTimeLocked transactions to new addresses he controls.

Those transactions will most likely become spendable in January 2020.
Which could be the reason why BSV will allow such transactions with the February 2020 update called Genesis.
Question, on the current BTC chain are Satoshi's early coins spendable since they are considered to be "non-standard" transactions.

My memory on this topic (which is fuzzy) is that when BTC started to enforce standard transaction types that nodes would not rely transactions which spent or created a non-standard transaction, but that if a block was created with a non-standard transaction they would be processed. That may or may not be the case, or core could have changed it since.

Are the early 2009 coins spendable on the BTC chain once the lockout period is up?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
>My memory on this topic (which is fuzzy) is that when BTC started to enforce standard transaction types that nodes would not rely transactions which spent or created a non-standard transaction, but that if a block was created with a non-standard transaction they would be processed. That may or may not be the case, or core could have changed it since.

that is exactly how I remember it and I think it's still in force on btc. I think I heard bsv wants to revert that once and for all.
[doublepost=1558506858][/doublepost]I don't know why they'd want to revert it except it makes sense to stop a miner self generated attack block.
[doublepost=1558507289][/doublepost]I'd never heard Satoshi's coins were nlocked
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
The U.S. Copyright Office will register any work, received from any person, as long as he or she pays a $35 fee. It does not investigate authorship or ask any questions other than your name, address, and date of authorship. The Copyright Office will also grant registration of the same work to multiple people claiming authorship. If 5,000 members of this forum print out https://bitco.in/bitcoin.pdf and send it to the Copyright Office with a form and a fee, all of them will be granted registration.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Yes, it is not pleasant to be called an idiot, or fucking stupid. But it's far more underhanded to try to banish one of the earliest adopters from the BU community.
No wonder, the Vikings are not amused about those voters who did not vote against that subterranean attempt.
[doublepost=1558511779,1558510799][/doublepost]
What a great song @Zarathustra !

Thanks for the art.
Yes, just as BSV is the most underrated chain, this song is the most underrated piece of art.
 

kyuupichan

Member
Oct 3, 2015
95
348
posted from the Bitcoin © blockchain


Thats a 1.4GB block with 360k transactions, plus 4 more >1GB+ blocks
You must be mistaken, we have it on high authority the software craps itself at 22MB.
[doublepost=1558517306,1558516301][/doublepost]The early cionbases can be spent with "standard transactions"; there is no problem.

Thankfully that stupid concept will be gone in BSV in under a year.
 

shadders

Member
Jul 20, 2017
54
344
Question, on the current BTC chain are Satoshi's early coins spendable since they are considered to be "non-standard" transactions.

My memory on this topic (which is fuzzy) is that when BTC started to enforce standard transaction types that nodes would not rely transactions which spent or created a non-standard transaction, but that if a block was created with a non-standard transaction they would be processed. That may or may not be the case, or core could have changed it since.

Are the early 2009 coins spendable on the BTC chain once the lockout period is up?
I think the early coinbases are pay to public key which is still considered standard.

I'd have to double check but I think the standard check only applies to outputs not to the inputs you are spending.

And yes default is to not relay non standard. But accept them if mined into a block. SV will be getting rid of this restriction as soon as we have parallel tx validation in place with priority threads for well known script types. This is just a safety measure so that if a weird script comes along that locks up a validation thread for a long period all the standard transactions will still flow through the priority threads.

Code is written for the parallel tx validation, it still in QA. Big invasive change so its getting a triple dose of testing. So maybe by Augustish we can get rid of the notion of standard txs and people can start really exploring the potential of script.
 
Last edited:
You must be mistaken, we have it on high authority the software craps itself at 22MB.
[doublepost=1558517306,1558516301][/doublepost]The early cionbases can be spent with "standard transactions"; there is no problem.

Thankfully that stupid concept will be gone in BSV in under a year.
Mine a 128mb block in livenet: we already know it is possible from our private testnets.

Mine a 1.4gb block on testnet: it doesn't count because it is on testnet.

...

@Norway I think you are too rude to @solex. I agree with your assertion that bitcoin unlimited has become bitcoin limited again with going on exclusive deadalcoin support. But the vote was done, this is the bu democracy, not by anonymous trolls, but by all bu officials. If bu and you no longer share the same chain, you should resign. It will give you more peace of mind.

@shadders @Otaci thank you for answering questions about sv 0.2 here. Very exciting to hear about the parval work, also exciting to offer a non wallet version of sv.
 

Bloomie

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2015
510
803
Eli Afram is a spin doctor himself who doesn't have a clue about how the copyright registration process works. As I said, the "analysis" is superficial. They ask for a name, an address, and a date. "Originality" does not mean what it appears to mean in this context. They just look for contradictory statements on the registration form and call it a day.
[doublepost=1558531984][/doublepost]
Not to share. Sorry.
Why? :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
Most of the opposition to BSV is caught up solely on people, while trying to fix bitcoin to not be bitcoin, supporting the 'fixes' which belie the economic and game theoretic underpinnings of the system, never giving the chance for bitcoin to operate at scale as intended.

Heavy investment leads to severe cognitive dissonance and entrenched positions. All while smothering BitCoin in its cradle.

Just let the BitCoin experiment a chance to play out. I never thought bitcoin would have to route around an alliance of bigblockers the same as the smallblockers, but here it is, BitCoin, finding a route around the ABC bigblockers here.
 

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156

shilch

Member
Mar 28, 2019
54
216
I think my main concern has to do with radical soft fork changes, like Segwit. the only viable response would then be a hard fork to a new ticker, as I outlined yesterday.
Anybody who hardforks the BSV chain is allowed to use the software under the Open BSV license.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
What happens in slack stays in slack
Haha, good one

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pajbj8/slack-warns-investors-its-a-target-for-nation-state-hacking

https://mashable.com/2018/02/16/slack-leaks-new-email-leaks/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/slack-bug-gave-hackers-full-access-to-accounts-messages/

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/slack-admits-hacked-enables-2-factor-authentication/

...
[doublepost=1558535938][/doublepost]
Anybody who hardforks the BSV chain is allowed to use the software under the Open BSV license.
Can we get that in writing with nChain executive signatures?

Or are we supposed to take your word for it :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
The first slack I ran contained forensics people (what were they doing lol) and folks who tried their best to flood attack, undoubtedly other things.
 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
Can we get that in writing with nChain executive signatures?

Or are we supposed to take your word for it :ROFLMAO:
It's already in writing, it's exactly what the license states. MIT license allows for this. The license is the MIT license scoped to any chain with the BSV fork block. All future BSV forks have this block and are covered.

Why would you want nchain exec to "get that in writing", anything they wrote separately is not as enforceable as the contract. That is why we have contracts. They are the writing and define the rules in one place.