The quote to which you used to answered also included the following.
I was under the impression your answer is a response to both and my point is that nobody needs to leave BU based on which full node client BU is developing or not.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@torusJKL ah. i see. my mistake. sorry about that.
I was specifically talking about a full node that supports BSV. None of the current developers are willing to support it right now. There is also nothing that forces developers to work on anything specific, which means without finding some developers to support BSV in a full node client there is no point in discussing if it should be done until there is some big change that might change peoples minds.
I wouldn't be hesistant to extend that statement to including funding development of protocols/applications that are BSV specific at this time. Mostly because it seems the majority of BU (as shown through voting) would be against allocating funds for something of that nature.
I was specifically talking about a full node that supports BSV. None of the current developers are willing to support it right now. There is also nothing that forces developers to work on anything specific, which means without finding some developers to support BSV in a full node client there is no point in discussing if it should be done until there is some big change that might change peoples minds.
I wouldn't be hesistant to extend that statement to including funding development of protocols/applications that are BSV specific at this time. Mostly because it seems the majority of BU (as shown through voting) would be against allocating funds for something of that nature.
Yes, we can't force the developers and based on the current member alignment I also don't see a BSV specific project get accepted in a vote.
But that could change in the future.
And maybe we can find projects that benefit both camps.
But that could change in the future.
And maybe we can find projects that benefit both camps.
Has nChain or any of their employees asked for help on this forum? Are any BU devs working with them directly on code restoration?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
[doublepost=1558695441][/doublepost]An update on the dynamic blocksize simulator effort.
The specification has taken shape sufficiently and coding has begun.
Hopefully some interesting results out of this once it is finished and usable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bs6e8k/adjustable_blocksize_algorithm_reqs_for_simulator/
In the meantime, scaling work on the Bitcoin Cash clients is proceeding - I'm hugely looking forward to Bitcoin Unlimited's next results from the Gigablock testnet.
The specification has taken shape sufficiently and coding has begun.
Hopefully some interesting results out of this once it is finished and usable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bs6e8k/adjustable_blocksize_algorithm_reqs_for_simulator/
In the meantime, scaling work on the Bitcoin Cash clients is proceeding - I'm hugely looking forward to Bitcoin Unlimited's next results from the Gigablock testnet.
@Norway I am disappointed to see this childish name-calling by you. Its a bad as when Amaury and Shammah voted in BU clearly against their own initiatives.
You are better than this. So be better.
You are better than this. So be better.
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Who doesn't do that? It has been this way for years, obvious and apparent even without the social media signalling on display here.
that's just u/imuname once again displaying his emphasis on personalities.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
This is probably the best explanation yet from CSW about why he designed Bitcoin the way he did, reflecting a Misesian and Randian form of libertarianism.
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-and-the-sophists/
[doublepost=1558753057,1558752068][/doublepost]By the way, has anyone else realized the blocksize debate is now over?
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-and-the-sophists/
[doublepost=1558753057,1558752068][/doublepost]By the way, has anyone else realized the blocksize debate is now over?
anyone else note what appears to be a change stimulated by our debate on this? note the plural, blockchain"s":
"The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof, can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined, for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767 with the hash “000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b” and the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified Software."
https://bitcoinassociation.net/open-bsv-license/
https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE
Interesting change to the BSV license after v0.2.0 came out, a plural form was used.
[doublepost=1558757681][/doublepost]@cypherdoc, you beat me by 2 minutes... We need something better to do on the weekend apparently.
this part should be changed additionally like :
"The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain's' containing block height #556767
-with this hash: 000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b.
"The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain's' containing block height #556767
-with this hash: 000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Which businesses asked for a change of license to the Bitcoin software?
Here's the deal:
Legal bills are so high that businesses must have a very good reason to accept license instability over protocol instability.
If I wanted to drive business away from my chain, I could think of no better way than to twiddle with the license making it non-open source and changing terms once in a while.
Here's the deal:
- Changes to the protocol: businesses can still invest to keep up by making suitable changes to stay compatible
- Changes to the license: businesses now face possible exclusion by vendor and legal risk if what they're doing *might* contravene said license
Legal bills are so high that businesses must have a very good reason to accept license instability over protocol instability.
If I wanted to drive business away from my chain, I could think of no better way than to twiddle with the license making it non-open source and changing terms once in a while.
Last edited:
Despite a few misconceptions near the start, this article should be a wakeup call for all bitcoiners.
https://medium.com/cryptolawreview/bitcoin-battle-668349176b38
https://medium.com/cryptolawreview/bitcoin-battle-668349176b38
I'm still traveling
this just proves that Craig, Calvin, and Jimmy are watching this thread. that's ok, it's a good thing, something I've suspected for quite a while now. their talking points match almost exactly many of the things I've said and others have said here. as it should be; the big block and BU movements and "original vision" mantra started here and most of us are OG's and active.
for me its about contingency planning that can be defended legally . not that I ever think that nchain or CSW would pull a rogue soft fork move on concensus rules; there's just no logical reason for them to take that chance. however i, and most of you here, have been surprised at how financially conflicted devs can be, so imo, the BSV community has to be prepared and have the option to hard fork away from the nchain github as an emergency measure. just in case.
--> get that last 's' tacked onto that last "blockchain" and I'll be full on BSV support
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
I dunno. It seems to be expanded to include the test blockchains but not really to accommodate a split. It actually seems more murky to my eyes.
Perhaps you should ask them directly.
Otaci
Member
- Jul 26, 2017
- 74
- 384
The plural form of the first occurrence of the word blockchain refers to multiple blockchains, which are defined in the continuation of the sentence. The second occurrence of the word blockchain refers to the mainnet blockchain, being the first of the blockchains that are covered by the license. The "test blockchains" refers to testnet, regtest, and stn, those being the other blockchains that are covered by the license.
[doublepost=1558806518][/doublepost]
Yes. A split after the block specified in the license is covered by the license. In that event, we retain the option to release a new version of the software with an updated license, but that would not impact the license for previous versions.
EDIT: changed "existing version" into "previous versions".
[doublepost=1558806594][/doublepost]I am reluctant to comment any more on this because I am not a lawyer. If you want an expert opinion, consult a lawyer.
Last edited: