Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

Freetrader, fascinating how your MO has changed over the last year.

Instead of salty shitting on everything like a buttcoiner, why don't you engage in honest debate?

What is it exactly, that is wrong with Satoshi's whitepaper vision of Bitcoin ? What is it that you so desparately want to change that it has to be done by trolling honest adoption of Bitcoin?

Are you not interested in seeing the Metanet develop? Does monetizing every packet of information that traverses the internet, using Bitcoin, seem like a bad idea to you?

@trinoxol rather than waste your time with troll posts have a watch of this.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@lunar
The title of the whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
not "Bitcoin: A data storage system".

 

[trinoxol]

Hello @freetrader. The BSV data storage strategy is misrepresented and distorted to sound ridiculous in other communities. This thread is not a great representation.

Hello @lunar, I have added this video to my other 50 open browser tabs I found the CoinGeek conference one of those rare conferences that are worth watching. These people think differently than what one might be used to from the larger crypto space. There is more seriousness to their plans. I'm growing more fond of the idea that crypto adoption does not come from grassroots strategies but from profit greedy businesses onboarding users in masses.

 

[cbeast]

@lunar
The title of the whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
not "Bitcoin: A data storage system".

Who said anything about it being a storage system? How can you store thousands (or millions) of transactions per second on a 1MB block?

 

[Zarathustra]

@lunar
The title of the whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
not "Bitcoin: A data storage system".

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. [...] The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago."

 

[cypherdoc]

this doesn't sound good. @freetrader, any comments? :

"UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMOUR: I'm hearing reports from normally reliable contacts that there are serious problems with the bitcon.com mining operation, and hackers are involved. Bitcon.com customers getting pissed. They're not mining on BTC or BCH. Looks like it's all over."
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/c8m9lf/unsubstantiated_rumour_im_hearing_reports_from/

 

[freetrader]

Not sure there is a reason for concern, but thanks @cypherdoc for your concern.

 

[79b79aa8]

every exchange i am prepared to verify an account with asks for >10 confirmations for BCH deposits (or 20 for good measure). by the time your funds are ready to trade, the market has shifted.

the irony . . . partly as a result of an effort to facilitate 0-confs, BCH ended up instituting rolling checkpoints and signaling to exchanges that 10 confirmations are required for safety.

 

[cypherdoc]

bwahaha, that's hilarious
[doublepost=1562165539][/doublepost]@freetrader why are the exchanges wrong?

 

[freetrader]

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Interesting to see the same FUD tactics that have been used against BCH before from coretards are now used by BSV-slaves.
I can't remember how many times Bitmain is now broke and Jihan in prison.
And now it's bitcoin.com..

I can understand the people who don't trust ABC and are concerned about BCH's future and keep BSV as a hedge.

But I cannot fathom how some of you guys could turn to the dark side with so much ease.
nChain is evil. Best case scenario is you are lying in bed with some half-idiotic gangsters. Worst case scenario you are lying in bed with some government agency.

 

[_mr_e]

The problem I have with both bsv and bch is that is broke nakamoto consensus. While unwriter's apps and use cases are indeed interesting and may prove valuable, the team behind should have worked hard to gain consensus to make such a change on btc. If they are unable to do so then nakamoto consensus does not agree in it's value. To gain consensus you must be certain that your chain will immediately gain the hash power and price to back it. If it does not then you are doing it wrong. All the claims of censorship, dev centralization blah blah are all part of the consensus game. If you can't gain consensus then bitcoin doesn't care what you're personal feelings are on the way it evolves, you either work harder to gain consensus and make changes or you make an altcoin.

BSVers claim that btc is the one that forked with segwit. So I would ask... One day when the current address scheme is deemed to be insecure, what will be the preferred solution? I would bet there will be a soft fork to a new address scheme and everyone will be required to move their coins. This will look exactly like segwit. If BSV will never do such a soft fork in the presense of looming address cracking then it will be dead as a rock. If it does, then clearly it is not as set in stone as it claims and nakamotoa consensus will always eventually take over no matter what chain.

 

[Zarathustra]

They never mined as few BCH blocks as the last 2 days.

https://bch.btc.com/stats/pool/Bitcoin.com?_ga=2.141027636.700479922.1562170670-703815084.1562170670

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@cypherdoc
Btw it's pretty suspicious that someone like you suddenly starts to fail understanding things like variance in mining.

 

[Richy_T]

Hmm. Wonder if there's a way that miners could verify what they're mining. Something like proof the nonce came from bitcoin.com and then proof if that nonce (or equivalent) shows up in a chain that's not the one that's supposed to be being mined.
[doublepost=1562173823][/doublepost]@_mr_e It concerns me too which is why I don't totally rule out another fork of BTC going forward. Ideally the people who took the risk of increasing the block size should be rewarded but life isn't always fair.

FWIW, I hate Core and Segwit but the show isn't over until the fat lady sings.

 

[Zarathustra]

@cypherdoc
Btw it's pretty suspicious that someone like you suddenly starts to fail understanding things like variance in mining.

You don't know whether it's variance or not. They never found as few blocks as within the last 2 days.

 

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc
Btw it's pretty suspicious that someone like you suddenly starts to fail understanding things like variance in mining.

nah, not at all. it's pretty suspicious when they just dropped entirely off the hash map and didn't mine any blocks at all for 22h or whatever. right now they're at 6.8% of BCH hash. i don't know if it was higher or lower prior to this event but that's 9.79 blocks per day give or take that they should have mined in that 22h period. to mine zero is highly suspicious of downtime for whatever reason. that's not simple variance.
[doublepost=1562175597,1562174863][/doublepost]welcome back b, seriously. despite you being rabid core.

the team behind should have worked hard to gain consensus to make such a change on btc.

you know as well as i do that big blockists did work hard only to be betrayed by sw2x. it shouldn't be surprising that hard forks have occurred.

To gain consensus you must be certain

you know that's impossible. the only practical way is to hard fork and wait and see. anyone drawing definitive conclusions, including myself, at this early stage of the game (only 7mo of BSV) is jumping the gun.

If it does not then you are doing it wrong.

doing it means hard forking and then working your ass off over an extended period of time to compete for market share. as we know, the ideal vision takes time and effort. a decision will be made eventually.

you either work harder to gain consensus

i think that is what is happening. you might not like the tactics but this is money we're talking about and the stakes are high.

If BSV will never do such a soft fork in the presense of looming address cracking then it will be dead as a rock.

no BSV supporter in here, afaik, has ever claimed the BSV protocol is set in stone forever. i agree, it's a bad characterization b/c we all know the algo or sig scheme will need changing eventually. the problem BCH has is that it changes itself q6mo, which is a terrible loophole for corruption and bias. the problem with BTC is it's capped at 1MB, so that even if LN becomes moderately successful (which i don't think it will) the onchain fees to cash out are volatile and oftentimes unworkable. we see LN hub centralization as we speak and the BTC liquidity continues to decrease. BSV, afaic, will only soft or hard fork the algo or sig scheme when absolutely necessary. this is so businesses can have confidence that their basic business assumptions stay true both during their bootstrapping process and for many years to come. this last point should be so basic that anyone can understand the BSV original vision.

 

[_mr_e]

you know as well as i do that big blockists did work hard only to be betrayed by sw2x. it shouldn't be surprising that hard forks have occurred.

It doesn't matter what the reasons are the attempt failed. That is part of the game. Consensus is hard and failure to get it means the status quo.

you know that's impossible. the only practical way is to hard fork and wait and see. anyone drawing definitive conclusions, including myself, at this early stage of the game (only 7mo of BSV) is jumping the gun.

Yes, but part of the game requires feeling out all participants in the industry, most especially which chain the users will value and the miners will follow. 7 months is too long, a fork should be decided immediately. It does not fair well for digital currency in general to have a fork come up from out behind after 7 months and wiping out all the investors and economic activity that has participated in the chain with most work. If such a fork were to take over in this way then the value proposition of bitcoin is shattered in my mind.

doing it means hard forking and then working your ass off over an extended period of time to compete for market share. as we know, the ideal vision takes time and effort. a decision will be made eventually.

It should mean working your ass off to gain consensus around the single protocol the world is clearly more aligned on, judging by price, hash rate, investment etc.

i think that is what is happening. you might not like the tactics but this is money we're talking about and the stakes are high.

Wiping out existing investment and trading it for a chain that early investors are far more likely to hoard more of does not sound like bitcoin to me.

no BSV supporter in here, afaik, has ever claimed the BSV protocol is set in stone forever. i agree, it's a bad characterization b/c we all know the algo or sig scheme will need changing eventually. the problem BCH has is that it changes itself q6mo, which is a terrible loophole for corruption and bias. the problem with BTC is it's capped at 1MB, so that even if LN becomes moderately successful (which i don't think it will) the onchain fees to cash out are volatile and oftentimes unworkable. we see LN hub centralization as we speak and the BTC liquidity continues to decrease. BSV, afaic, will only soft or hard fork the algo or sig scheme when absolutely necessary. this is so businesses can have confidence that their basic business assumptions stay true both during their bootstrapping process and for many years to come. this last point should be so basic that anyone can understand the BSV original vision.

This is the point of nakamoto consensus. It is not for any individual or group to decide what is an acceptable change and what is not. consensus selected segwit for better or for worse and if we can't trust that process then no chain is safe. BSV is not immune from such a change, perhaps it's currently small group of investors make it possible to tow this line for now, but 100 or 200 years from now the world will be a very different place and such a fork could happen. This is why I choose to stay on the chain that consensus is valuing and may have some less optimal current settings then move everyone over to a whole new one that will inevitably have the same problems.


I am not a coretard. I am a nakamoto consensus believer and whether or not I personally agree with changes adopted by such consensus is within my personal believes or not does not matter. Without strict consensus, we have nothing.

 

[freetrader]

[doublepost=1562177485][/doublepost][doublepost=1562177654][/doublepost]

7 months is too long, a fork should be decided immediately.

You are choosing to ignore reality.

 

[cypherdoc]

and what you're proposing is to encourage both sides to scale unsafely (and in the absence of actual demand) in order to win a silly and pointless competition. No thank you.

says who and how do they know?