Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I can't remove your blinders for you @freetrader. You have to do it yourself.
You'd be the last person I'd come to if I suspected I wasn't seeing clearly enough.

While I acknowledge your opinion, I feel it is disingenuous and belies an ulterior motive.
LOL @cbeast, like I said you guys are funny.

Instead of addressing the argument, you question the motive.

But let me elaborate. Upping some limits a little, adding some opcodes which BCH will get in some form or other later, and not including CDS/CDSV + CTOR doesn't make BSV more like the whitepaper describes, nor does it make BCH less so.

w.r.t. these opcodes we have Norway holding up the flag for emulating them in Script on BSV.

w.r.t. CTOR the whitepaper says nothing about the ordering of transactions within a block.

w.r.t. the rest of the differences, BSV has no material changes that would make it align better with the whitepaper than BCH.

BCH [is] not anything like what the Bitcoin white paper describes.
What a disingenuous statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richy_T

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
But let me elaborate. Upping some limits a little, adding some opcodes which BCH will get in some form or other later,
Don't spam! It's peer-to-peer cash only. LukePaciaSechetFtrader jr.
[doublepost=1561638384][/doublepost]
Transactions per second on a testnet means little unless the transaction load and its propagation, and the topology of the test network in some way reflect real world conditions.
And if it in some way reflects real world conditions, it means a lot.

Constructing huge artificial blocks and mining them without realistic tx propagation certainly doesn't count as meaningful here.

So, a lot more test evidence is required to make me believe that Bitcoin SV (the client) can perform better in the real world than e.g. the BUcash client.
As if you analysed that testnet and the results.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
You forgot rolling checkpoints.. ;)
Ah yes, the bane of every would be full billionaire mode 51% attacker wanna be.

Need I refer you to the closing sentence of the whitepaper?

These "rolling checkpoints" are not a permanent feature of BCH consensus. Once the hashrate is sufficient that 51% attack risk is no longer a big concern, the network participants who might use them today (are there still any? got any proof?) can remove them entirely.
[doublepost=1561641029][/doublepost]
As if you analysed that testnet and the results.
I'm guessing if you could link to anything resembling a thorough test report, you would.
Therefore, you can't.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
>Ah yes, the bane of every would be full billionaire mode 51% attacker wanna be.

>Need I refer you to the closing sentence of the whitepaper?

>These "rolling checkpoints" are not a permanent feature of BCH consensus. Once the hashrate is sufficient that 51% attack risk is no longer a big concern, the network participants who might use them today (are there still any? got any proof?) can remove them entirely.

don't think i can't detect your embarrassment, apologetics, let alone idiocy. we've been thru this before and it's clear that you and BCH don't believe you should have to compete via investment in hashrate. i know you're embarrassed about this but continue to contort yourself and mislead other BCH noobs into thinking checkpoints are a normal Satoshi endorsed thing. no, they are not. and if you would take a moment to reflect on how they totally distort, and you contort, the PoW mechanism and everything that's secure about Bitcoin, you might actually come across as a sincere person.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
how many >>>32MB blocks does BSV have to mine on mainnet before BCH fans get it thru there heads they were wrong?:

Bitcoin SV currently has a default maximum block size of 128MB, meaning the recent huge blocks contained sufficient data from BSV users to fill the current cap. The two 128MB blocks come as Bitcoin SV witnessed multiple days of big action, including a 113MB block mined on March 28 by CoinGeek Mining and numerous blocks above 50, 60 and even 80MB – all far larger than blocks on any other competing blockchain.

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/04/04/bitcoin-sv-bsv-mines-world-record-128mb-blocks/
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
don't think i can't detect your embarrassment, apologetics, let alone idiocy.
Typical @cypherdoc level. I attribute it due to lack of actual arguments. Let's have a look at yours.

we've been thru this before and it's clear that you and BCH don't believe you should have to compete via investment in hashrate.
Haha. Your side didn't have the hashrate to win the hashwar you announced.

You lost. Period.

You didn't make the necessary investments.

Full of bravado. Trying to force your agenda on the real majority when you couldn't bring enough proof of work.

Now THAT is an embarassment, and written in history.

Spare me your 128mb block theatrics. If you think that proves anything about BCH's roadmap to be flawed, then alright, keep believing.
i know you're embarrassed about this but continue to contort yourself and mislead other BCH noobs into thinking checkpoints are a normal Satoshi endorsed thing. no, they are not. and if you would take a moment to reflect on how they totally distort, and you contort, the PoW mechanism and everything that's secure about Bitcoin, you might actually come across as a sincere person.
Congratulations, you are now on a coin with smaller hashrate than BCH.

If anyone thinks BCH is not secure, they should consider twice about BSV.

If there are BTC miners that could attack BCH, there are BTC miners that could attack BSV much easier.

Keep pumping that chicken, because the low hanging fruit will get harvested first.

I'll laugh the day your coin is attacked and you implement checkpoints to defend, like Satoshi was first to do on Bitcoin.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
> Haha. Your side didn't have the hashrate to win the hashwar you announced. You lost. Period.

No, BitCoin won, it survived and begins to prosper, because the majority of the miners is not stupid enough to kill BitCoin, which obviously has more potential than BTC. The hash war is a marathon.

> I'll laugh the day your coin is attacked and you implement checkpoints to defend, like Satoshi was first to do on Bitcoin.

BSV - in contrast to BCH's chief devaluator and his parrots - is not afraid of the miners.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
I attribute it due to lack of actual arguments.
arguing with someone like you who screens out a plethora of former arguments and historical vignettes i've made against checkpoints is pointless. you just don't want to listen.

Haha. Your side didn't have the hashrate to win the hashwar you announced.
what is this, a joke? of course BSV had the hashpower; that's precisely why ABC, out of fear, unilaterally enacted checkpoints to save themselves.

You lost. Period.
anyone who says it's over is out of touch with reality. it ain't over til it's over meaning BSV to 0. if anything, BSV has made great strides on BCH, with the ratio up to 0.47 now.

You didn't make the necessary investments.
lol, Calvin and CSW have made a shitload of monetary investment. how much has ABC invested? oh what, zero?

Full of bravado. Trying to force your agenda on the real majority when you couldn't bring enough proof of work.
no force required. it's about capacity to scale; which BSV has already proven on mainnet with a bunch of >>>32MB blocks.

If anyone thinks BCH is not secure, they should consider twice about BSV.
BSV doesn't use or need checkpoints. you do.
 
Last edited:

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
I thought that was a really good speech. Would be interested to know what the people in the crowd thought of it.

Imagine pouring over everything Craig Wright says and does looking for a flaw, and having to endure interpreting such an exciting and uplifting vision of the future negatively.
 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
If you see who Craig has been testifying against today,(Hydra, Silk Road and Bitcointalk owner MM). I propose, it's a fair assumption, any OG Bitcoiners who hate Craig, can roughly be broken into two groups. Those who know he's Satoshi but have links with or want Dark markets to flourish, and those that have been taken in by the smearing propaganda, made by the former group.

(Hydra allegedly used CP as a currency to trade drugs)

Things not looking good for Mr Maxwell and associates.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
the noobs only now recognizing this argument i made against LN years ago when it was first conceived. it's a way for LN nodes (theoretically) to steal miner fees. sad, so much wasted time:

...seems more like an excuse to pay node operators for "liquidity".

 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
It must be looking good for Craig when he starts crying on his lawyer's shoulder, and gets threatened with handcuffs for misbehaving in court.

If he were a lawyer one would assume he'd be familiar with expected standards of behavior in such an environment.

On the other hand, the chances of getting his hands on Satoshi's coins not looking too good. Perhaps the poor people he planned to extract tithes from will dodge that bullet. The show must go on.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Yes, civilized (= patronized) men learn not to cry. But not all of them have lost this ability. Even BCH dev's main donor has not lost this ancient human trait and is still able to cry on a given occasion, as we all know, and this, although Bitcoin is not his baby.