Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[lunar]

Do you happen to have screen shots of those signings for independent verifications?

Not to share. Sorry.

 

[shadders]

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.

 

[Richy_T]

Not to share. Sorry.

Nothing to see here then. Just more blah blah blah.

Satoshi Nakamoto: Forget the government, trust cryptography.
CSW supporters: Forget cryptography, trust the government.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

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]

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?

 

[torusJKL]

What will you do in January if nothing happens?

Nothing.

I'm not interested in BSV because of who Satoshi is but because I believe in the system Satoshi designed.

 

[sgbett]

Do you happen to have screen shots of those signings for independent verifications?

What happens in slack stays in slack

I haven't seen any early blocks signed, but then, I don't really care all that much. Would just be one more confirmation. 0-conf is perfectly adequate once most of the network has seen it.

 

[bitsko]

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]

allow what such tx's? nlocktime? I remember a time when it became apparent that the Blockstream boys didn't want a big block hard fork outta fear it would invalidate their nlocktime bonus payouts.

I'm referring to this feature:

• Limited support for the original sighash algorithm to ensure any legacy transaction that have been kept offline become valid on BSV again

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/04/17/the-roadmap-to-genesis-part-1/

 

[shilch]

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]

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

 

[bitsko]

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]

Can we get that in writing with nChain executive signatures?

Or are we supposed to take your word for it

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.

 

[Epilido]

Not to share. Sorry.

Then the statement about the signing is useless.

 

[torusJKL]

I'd never heard Satoshi's coins were nlocked

nLockTime transactions can be kept offline and broadcasted after they get valid (nLockTime has passed).
This means you don't know of their existence until they have been broadcasted.