Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
That's not relevant to the topic of the flippening, for that the comparison is to BTC and BCH dev groups.

Yes there will be resistance from governments who rely on central banking to exist, that was always expected. If the flippening happens bitcoin might be able to achieve its purpose
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@freetrader, let's assume ABC achieves its fundraising goal of 800 BCH after much promotion.

How many magnitudes of order more resources does BSV and nchain have? It is a serious question.

The fact ABC is even promoting its fundraising goal and positioning it as a success to me is an admission of failure....
Haha, this only convinces me that you forgot what the stakes are and how the game of Bitcoin is played.

It doesn't matter how much more resources "BSV and nchain" "have".
I note though that you never put a figure to it.

Point is, someone can have tens or hundreds of millions, even billions, and still set course in the wrong direction. See: Blockstream/Core .
 

Bloomie

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2015
510
803
Nchain has more copyrights of the Bitcoin whitepaper, more threats to sue bloggers for libel, more bullying, more support from ass-kissers, more clowning, and more lies. Therefore, they are the developers of the true Bitcoin. If this doesn't smell like deja vu, please reconsider your approach to consuming and processing outside information. At some point, when you get to that place of complete honesty with yourself, you will admit that something is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@freetrader
IBS is not preconsensus, yet you claim it is. Can you back up your claim with an argument? At what point does this consensus happen before a block is mined?
 
  • Like
Reactions: torusJKL

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
speaking of the BCH roadmap, it lists the inclusion of schnorr signatures as a step towards scaling (via batched signature validation).

this is euphemistic at best. to see that, recall that schnorr sigs have been championed by Core devs since long before BCH existed, and not precisely because of their putative contribution to scaling. the declared interest, rather, has been to introduce anonymity tools into the protocol.

that interest is not without justification. a prevalent worry has been that the fact that bitcoin transactions are fully analyzable poses the threat of loss of fungibility. perhaps the coins you bought legally were tainted from previous illicit transactions, and could be confiscated. this led to the rise of monero and the drive to include anonymization tools in bitcoin.

but the worry has been exaggerated. money obtained legally and without demonstrable knowledge of fraudulent origin is fungible. this is a fundamental monetary principle that applies to fiat, just as much as it does to bitcoin. this principle has been upheld in practice: to my knowledge there have been no cases of confiscation of bitcoin legally obtained and transacted, anywhere. there have been no threats to do so either.

the frequently drawn conclusion that fungibility requires anonymity is fallacious. within the constraints of the law, fiat is fungible without being anonymous (except for cash, which represents a minuscule part of the money supply), and so is bitcoin.

on the other hand we have a credible warning that adding anonymity schemes to the protocol introduces the risk of the coin to be outlawed in some jurisdictions. how would you like it if no exchange legally available to US customers was permitted to list the BCHUSD pair? are the software engineers that pushed for it certain that the addition of anonymization tools to the protocol does not introduce such catastrophic risk?
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Zarathustra's personal contribution to BU / BCH: 0
Freetrader's personal contribution to BU: minus 100
[doublepost=1559801459,1559800463][/doublepost]
Nchain has more copyrights of the Bitcoin whitepaper, more threats to sue bloggers for libel, more bullying, more support from ass-kissers, more clowning, and more lies. Therefore, they are the developers of the true Bitcoin. If this doesn't smell like deja vu, please reconsider your approach to consuming and processing outside information. At some point, when you get to that place of complete honesty with yourself, you will admit that something is wrong.
CSW has more copyrights of the Bitcoin whitepaper, got more threats from bloggers and anon agitators, more bullying, more hate from ass-kissers, more clowning, and more lies than anybody else in the crypto environment. If this doesn't smell like deja vu, please reconsider your approach to consuming and processing outside information. At some point, when you get to that place of complete honesty with yourself, you will admit that something is wrong.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Daniel Krawisz, creator of ShufflePuff, changes his opinion on anonymity vs. sunshine, just as I have changed mine.

Read his latest article, written into this transaction: https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/4a77217a9c35b6ec9b73c9b279116133bd4a1ad86cb30f56496920ab1361e863

This is the real paradigm divide between BSV and the rest of crypto. It's not pro- or anti-government so much as pro- or anti-sunshine. There are many non-anarchists who nonetheless cling to the vague and unexamined notion that darker is better as far as reining in government and central bank excess. Likewise there are many anarchists for whom a modified Bill Murray quote applies: "I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it."

Well if you want to dissolve the state, try creating a system that doesn't let government hide its money flows. See if that doesn't cover most of the grievances you thought you wanted anonymity for.

If we are honest with ourselves I believe most of us never thought through the implications of a fully transparent but pseudonymous ledger, instead succumbing to assurances that it was soon to be fully anonymizable. We assumed the feature was a bug. That prevented us from seeing the true power of Bitcoin and the sunshine principle with privacy provided by economics.

It is inexpensive to audit government accounts because government is a small central entity, or as Larken Rose calls it, "a tiny dot ordering everyone else around." At scale, with proper privacy measures such as avoidance of address reuse and splitting/combining as the whitepaper mentions, the transaction web becomes so complex that it isn't economical or even possible for governments to practice widespread surveillance of the blockchain. It can only choose high-value targets to investigate, at cost.

This is yet another paradigm shift effected by Satoshi, turning the whole problem on its head via economics, just as he did with his solution to the Byzantine Generals problem.
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
the current roadmap for BCH includes: merklix trees, adaptive blocksize, and fractional satoshis. are you sure that is the right direction?
Adaptive good in the medium term, until perhaps one day one can remove the limit altogether? Hell yes.

Fractional satoshis? Hell yes (BCH will need it, BSV maybe not)

Merklix trees? Do they transport all the data in a better structure (performance & feature wise)? Bring em on BCH.
[doublepost=1559810552][/doublepost]
Freetrader's personal contribution to BU: minus 100
[doublepost=1559801459,1559800463][/doublepost]
Ha, so you didn't challenge the zero rating even one bit.
You show yourself clearly.
[doublepost=1559810779][/doublepost]
Well if you want to dissolve the state, try creating a system that doesn't let government hide its money flows. See if that doesn't cover most of the grievances you thought you wanted anonymity for.
What now? I thought LAW IS LAW.

Well, then all you need is a law mandating how the Bitcoin blockchain shall be used by your government. Problem solved? If not, why not?

Privacy features exist to protect citizens from each other (their evil cousins) and their government (Big Brother).

It is inexpensive to audit government accounts because government is a small central entity
Where to begin with this bullshit?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pentagon-budget-mystery-807276/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: go1111111

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
a good example of a forged doc trying to make CSW look like a fraud was that short list of about 6 addresses, witnessed by his lawyer on Craig's phone, that was doctored to display large balance BTC that had nothing to do with him.
Wasn't his lawyer that gives these addresses to the court?

That means his lawyer is either stupid or malicous?
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
The big assumption you and many others are making here, is that these 'forged' documents have any provenance. Isn't it also possible, that materials have been stolen from CSW, then doctored to make them look incriminating and smear reputation?
When he had a blog, didn't he altered an article from 2008 in order to try to show he worked on Bitcoin since 2008 ? Then didn't he erase this article when the forgery was spotted?

cf the paragraph below "altered evidence" in the Jameson Lopp's article.

I don't think "his blog was hacked" is a plausible explanation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
Adaptive good in the medium term, until perhaps one day one can remove the limit altogether? Hell yes.
i wish proponents of adaptive blocksize, the defining feature of ABC, made some sort of renewed gesture towards arguing for the desirability of their idea, in economic as well as engineering terms. it is not a settled matter. yet scaling is the most important issue to resolve in bitcoin. we know what BTC and BSV are doing about it. BCH diddles. the clock ticks.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
i wish proponents of adaptive blocksize, the defining feature of ABC
The 'A' in ABC stood for 'adjustable', not 'adaptive'.

So calling adaptive the defining feature of ABC is not correct.
BU's EC is already a kind of adaptive blocksize limiting.
So it's more BU's defining feature - at least historically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 79b79aa8