Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

So I was wondering, given BCH's and BSV's minority hash position whether merge mining might be a valid interim survival strategy. Is there anything preventing merge mining BTC with BCH and/or BSV?

the problem is that MM has to be done from the perspective (consent) of the BTC miners since it's the majority chain hashwise. IOW, BTC miners have to assemble specific blocks in such a way that the same PoW hash calculation secures (conforms to) both blockchains. current BSV & BCH only miners would also have to accept solved merged mined blocks submitted by BTC miners to the BSV or BCH chain (as it means blocks will have an extra BTC header and an extra hash). IOW, alot of changes have to be made by BSV and BCH to allow MM too as well as BTC miners actively willing to perform MM.

 

[Dusty]

But note that BSV will be sun-setting P2SH and hence you would need to implement the advanced features in a different way.

Really??
I was told that they would "lock" the protocol because it's not good to require people to continuosly adapt their software, and I agree.
But taking out a feature that is there since so many years is above crazy: not only TONS of software will stop working, also a lot of coins would be lost?

I can't see any logic there: saying a thing a doing totally the opposite.

Like politicians.

 

[freetrader]

Imagine a person or persons painstakingly crafting bitcoin with an understanding of legal compliance, knowing of the previous attempts and the reasons for their failures... now imagine them watching their genius idea be turned into a fancy invention to trade abuse images online and sell cocaine in the mail.

Now imagine a Satoshi who actually knew that money will always be a tool that can be used for good or bad and that nothing is going to change that, and offering stronger financial privacy is a feature that some people may need and Bitcoin is not there to deny it to them.

 

[cypherdoc]

MM edit: also, the BSV & BCH protocols have to be altered to accept a BTC block (solved at or above the BSV & BCH difficulty levels) containing a hash of a BSV or BCH block as PoW for the BSV or BCH block.

 

[Dusty]

I'm sorry I'm only slowing catching up on the CSW/BSV thing, I asked around and my friends sent me to tons of false info he provided, for example that one:


There is also a forged email where he changed the year but forgot to change the day:


Those are provable false statements, so I can't understand: why people still talk about him?

Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any insight, I'm genuinely interested to understand more about it.

 

[freetrader]

Ian Grigg sticking to his guns; "CSW is Satoshi"

Relatively unsurprising due to staked reputation, but surprising that CSW claims that Grigg worked "to out" him in 2015.

 

[trinoxol]

Really??
I was told that they would "lock" the protocol because it's not good to require people to continuosly adapt their software, and I agree.
But taking out a feature that is there since so many years is above crazy: not only TONS of software will stop working, also a lot of coins would be lost?

They will keep existing coins functional. Likely, they will just ban mining new P2SH transactions. They will also remove the IsStandard checks so that you don't need P2SH to circumvent those checks.

In the BSV vision, end-users will not be exposed to addresses or scripts. All those mechanics are done by providers. Everything can be done without P2SH. The software that is broken by this is considered not important or easy to replace.

In my view, it is awesome that they are dead serious about returning to the original protocol. You can't cherry-pick. Nobody should be able to make a decision to arbitrarily add or remove a feature.

This strategy causes some collateral damage such as the loss of P2SH. That's OK.

 

[cypherdoc]

but surprising that CSW claims that Grigg worked "to out" him in 2015.

link?
[doublepost=1562691488,1562690730][/doublepost]

I'm sorry I'm only slowing catching up on the CSW/BSV thing, I asked around and my friends sent me to tons of false info he provided, for example that one:


There is also a forged email where he changed the year but forgot to change the day:


Those are provable false statements, so I can't understand: why people still talk about him?

Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any insight, I'm genuinely interested to understand more about it.

like i said, best way to deal with this shit is to ignore CSW and all the dev groups and ask yourself if the BSV protocol can stand on it's own as the closest implementation to the original WP. i say yes.

 

[Dusty]

They will keep existing coins functional. Likely, they will just ban mining new P2SH transactions.

So they will ban some kind of scripts? I.e.: some patterns?

And if they do something so crazy now, who knows which other patterns will be banned in the future?

They will also remove the IsStandard checks so that you don't need P2SH to circumvent those checks.

I think the plan to remove isStandard check is in every roadmap (even BTC!), but I can't see the relation to P2SH.

P2SH is just a standard and simple script, if you ban it you are doing another thing that contradicts itself: saying you remove the check for scripts, but then banning a few of them (so, implementing isStandard again), negating what you just stated; doublespeak again.

In the BSV vision, end-users will not be exposed to addresses or scripts.

What users are exposed to is another matter altogether, and has nothing to do with how low level works.
I'm also all for avoiding those addresses and technicalities to end user, but it's a UI thing, nothing needs to be changed in the protocol for that.

All those mechanics are done by providers. Everything can be done without P2SH.

How can you define scripts different from P2PKH without using something like P2SH?

The software that is broken by this is considered not important or easy to replace.

You mean every.single.software.out.there.
P2SH is so old that every wallet and library in the world supports it.

In my view, it is awesome that they are dead serious about returning to the original protocol. You can't cherry-pick. Nobody should be able to make a decision to arbitrarily add or remove a feature.

Removing something used since 8 years that every software implements is is not dead serious, is dead-brain-damaged.

This strategy causes some collateral damage such as the loss of P2SH. That's OK.

"collateral damage", lol.

The collateral damage done with segwit is nothing compared to such a thing, and segwit's only positive side is that it's backward compatible.

 

[cypherdoc]

They will keep existing coins functional. Likely, they will just ban mining new P2SH transactions. They will also remove the IsStandard checks so that you don't need P2SH to circumvent those checks.

In the BSV vision, end-users will not be exposed to addresses or scripts. All those mechanics are done by providers. Everything can be done without P2SH. The software that is broken by this is considered not important or easy to replace.

In my view, it is awesome that they are dead serious about returning to the original protocol. You can't cherry-pick. Nobody should be able to make a decision to arbitrarily add or remove a feature.

This strategy causes some collateral damage such as the loss of P2SH. That's OK.

i'm curious if they plan to revert the DAA.
[doublepost=1562691817][/doublepost]

I'm sorry I'm only slowing catching up on the CSW/BSV thing, I asked around and my friends sent me to tons of false info he provided, for example that one:


There is also a forged email where he changed the year but forgot to change the day:


Those are provable false statements, so I can't understand: why people still talk about him?

Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any insight, I'm genuinely interested to understand more about it.

here's a rebuttal to the StevenPalley tweet on font manipulation: https://www.yours.org/content/forensic-analysis-of-kleiman-vs-craig-s-wright-pdf-documents--fontgat-521e436954c1

 

[Dusty]

like i said, best way to deal with this shit is to ignore CSW and all the dev groups and ask yourself if the BSV protocol can stand on it's own as the closest implementation to the original WP.

But the BSV development is totally and completely centralised by what CSW decides, so how can you separate the two?

The power of CSW is so high that if he says something totally crazy like removing P2SH, something that creates also technical difficulties (I'll wait for all the questions I asked in the matter), people instead of laughing at him starts to think it's something good.

If this is not a cult, I don't know what it is.

Not even Buterin has the power to change Ethereum so much.
[doublepost=1562692259][/doublepost]

here's a rebuttal to the StevenPalley tweet on font manipulation: https://www.yours.org/content/foren...-s-wright-pdf-documents--fontgat-521e436954c1

I speak about changing the date and forgetting to change the day, and you reply me about a font problem? WTH?

 

[cypherdoc]

>But the BSV development is totally and completely centralised by what CSW decides, so how can you separate the two?

no, it's development is determined by the WP. i doubt nChain will be able to get the entire protocol back to exactly what it was in 0.1, as the inherited ABC code contains all their changes plus what was inherited from Core. but they can get it pretty close, like with reverting p2sh without causing any coin losses. at least this is the promise, which i and others have forced them to pretty strictly articulate (commit to) in public, one which the BSV community should hold them to. if not, we could hard fork from them or file a lawsuit for violating public promises.

>The power of CSW is so high that if he says something totally crazy like removing P2SH

it's not crazy since p2sh was never in the original protocol. besides, it was highly controversial at the time of adoption via Luke Jr. it also provides the offramp for many (all?) of these offchain protocols that subvert the mainchain via tx fee offloading. we can live without it.

> If this is not a cult, I don't know what it is.

if you think it's a cult then i guess you don't know what a cult is.

>I speak about changing the date and forgetting to change the day, and you reply me about a font problem? WTH?

why don't you try calming down. i just provided a counter example of how evidence in this case is being extremely manipulated. if you don't want to see it or if you don't like BSV, don't dev for it or participate in it. plain and simple.

 

[trinoxol]

Dusty, if you are willing to learn my position I'm glad to explain. If you are looking to let off some steam I'm not interested in sparring with you.

P2SH is a feature that cannot be expressed in script. It is not merely a script pattern. It is an entirely different way to create an output spend condition. Essentially, the condition moves from the TxOut to the spending TxIn. Nothing about the other semantics of script is changed.

In particular, P2SH does not expose any new functionality that script otherwise does not have. Just the position of the script changes.

P2SH can circumvent IsStandard checks. When IsStandard and P2SH are removed at the same time the exact same expressive power of script is kept.

> How can you define scripts different from P2PKH without using something like P2SH?

By removing IsStandard.

> You mean every.single.software.out.there.

The software will be altered so that it expresses the semantics you want without P2SH. I don't see why this is supposed to be such great damage. Software can be altered. It is an inconvenience, nothing more.

> But the BSV development is totally and completely centralised by what CSW decides, so how can you separate the two?

No! By freezing the protocol even CSW can no longer decide. This is key. We don't want *anyone* to be able to decide over the protocol. In the short term I guess it is true that CSW and nChain "decide" on a plan to restore the protocol. But the plan is finite and the community is in agreement over this.

 

[Otaci]

So they will ban some kind of scripts? I.e.: some patterns?

No

P2SH is just a standard and simple script,

No its not.

 

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin destined to pump:

[doublepost=1562706104][/doublepost]maybe our censored forums can learn a thing or two from our gvt:

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” Judge Parker wrote. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

[freetrader]

link?

trinoxol posted the transcript link.

 

[trinoxol]

Another alleged fraudulent action by Craig. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it worth the time to check this out?

The "font fraud" was a hoax:


I'm lucky that Chis Pacia did not block me for pointing this out

 

[freetrader]

Hoax, hahaha. Add trinoxol to the Eli Afram club of deceivers & deceived.

 

[trinoxol]

Well, does the court document contain that font? Nobody has shown that it does.

 

[freetrader]

If you have information that contradicts what has been found, by all means hand it to the defense, I'm sure they need all the assistance they can get.

Until then, joining the Afram choir of singing "hoax" is not going to make a drop of difference to the judgment of the court.