Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

Challenge your brain:
Should it be called a 51% attack, or a 51% decision?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Interestingly we have now two solutions that have the same goal but a different approach.

MetHandle uses hashes and encryption to keep the handles and information obscure.
SymRe stores everything in clear text but allows for signing data so that everyone can have his own namespace.

I'm very interested to know if people will use them and what features they prefer.

Both projects are only possible because the limits have been lifted on BSV.

Btw. here is my announcement for the SymRe upgrade.

So, let the competition begin? Competition is great when it is on one chain and not spread on many chains. At the same time I wished we had a common standard for what we want to do.

Wasn't symRe about linking to www content?

I think it and the magic attribution protocol need a better documentation. I did not really get from looking at it what it does and how it works. Not that I say that mine was better... With unwriter we have a great inspiration of writing a good docu.

Bitcoin sv is nice. Not what I expected it to become, but it's fun, a completely new way of storing and accessing data.

@Norway maybe I accidently turned into a developer, somehow... Because i wanted to set up my own websites... I felt familiar with coding in school, but didn't care about it for 15 years. I don't like this much, as I am not good in it and love writing for humans brains...

 

[Richy_T]

The hash comes in the form of a Merkle tree. Updating the tail of the tree involves processing the tail plus O(log n) internal tree nodes. Incremental updates are efficient.

Good to know. As I've said before, my preference would be that a node should be able to *accept* a block assembled in any order. That allows for several different optimizations to be tried.
[doublepost=1563319699][/doublepost]

why would i want to contaminate my perfectly legitimate and abundantly private transactions with those of who the hell knows? in the interests of someone else's presumed anonymity?

Do you have a link to these issues with Schnorr? My understanding was that it was a scheme to allow multiple inputs to be signed by a compound signature and pretty benign.

 

[cypherdoc]

i'd take Zooko's word for it; Peter Todd is a creep:

https://medium.com/@zooko/my-statement-to-the-court-in-todd-v-lovecruft-cee5da667834

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann
You are a developer because you develop stuff. A coder is not a developer. A coder is a coder.

Writing words doesn't make you a journalist. Coding code doesn't make you a developer. Drawing buildings doesn't make you an architect.

 

[lunar]

Looks like they finally caught up with Uyko too.


Bitfunder CEO sentenced to 14 months in prison

 

[Norway]

Good to know. As I've said before, my preference would be that a node should be able to *accept* a block assembled in any order. That allows for several different optimizations to be tried.

It's possible to have CTOR blocks with IBS. But it's just a waste of info (CTOR is a data loss process) and resources (a meaningless sorting).

 

[79b79aa8]

@Richy_T, some clarification was provided by @bsdtar.

 

[trinoxol]

Yes, I guess you can IBS with CTOR as well. When the block finalizes you need a final sorting step and build the Merkle tree. That's perfectly parallelizable so that scales as well. But this work is not incremental like the streaming of transactions is. With TTOR+IBS the whole block is fully synchronized in a few network roundtrips and a few milliseconds.

1TB blocks mean 1.6GB/s of data. A single CPU core of the fastest CPUs in existance hashes a few hundred MB per second. Single-threaded hashing can never satisfy the demands of Bitcoin.

1.6GB/s at 200 bytes per transaction means 8 million TPS, btw. Everything about this including UTXO validation must be parallelized.
[doublepost=1563359060][/doublepost]https://coinspice.io/news/ethereum-co-founder-vitalik-buterin-considers-bitcoin-cash-for-data-availability-layer/

BCH offers “High data throughput (32 MB per 600 sec = 53333 bytes per sec, compared to ethereum ~8kb per sec which is already being used by applications),” Buterin explained

The thought of using BSV with its soon 15x bigger capacity does not cross his mind.

 

[sgbett]

sometimes even I forget why I distrust devs so much.

back in 2011, BCT was filled with mostly devs and assorted technical types. the few of you around at that time know this to be true. you also know this logically HAS to be true since technical types were the only ones that could wrap their heads around the technical details so early on and the investors for the most part hadn't yet driven up the price since they weren't around. having started this thread in August (unbeknownst to me a monster to be) I was known to be a "speculator". esp since I was also the #1 poster in terms of frequency then and for several more years until the thread purge. when the price dumped from 32 to 1.98 between July and November (seemed an eternity at the time) , I got suddenly attacked by many of these folks to the insane tune of being called A "Manipulator". can you believe that? what a bunch of whiny bitches. these clowns had no idea of the economic incentives driving Bitcoin at that time and to be into the far future and were barfing up btc by the barrel fulls while screaming at all the "speculators" ruining their precious coin when all that was happening was normal price volatility. then came the attacks on the miners, by these same devs, as a bunch of greedy ignorant pseudo speculators that couldn't be trusted. that's when I knew I was mostly dealing with a bunch of economic ignoramuses technical or not.

BCH, and unfortunately BU , is BTC core all over again. you can see it so plainly in the same recycled arguments against raising the blocksize

Aggregated crowd behaviour fuelled by predictable emotions.

The cycle is so obvious it feels like "cheat mode"

 

[torusJKL]

So, let the competition begin? Competition is great when it is on one chain and not spread on many chains. At the same time I wished we had a common standard for what we want to do.

As long as it is friendly competition.
Common standards will evolve.
Unwriter's bitcom standard for example has been used by almost every new protocol.

Wasn't symRe about linking to www content?

It's not limited to www.
Two of the earliest entries were to bit:// and b:// content.

https://sym.re/6d9NXRv points to bit://19HxigV4QyBv3tHpQVcUEQyq1pzZVdoAut/96e3481227c9c11ee4b5d6d5aa28dc46a64d26fcacf0838d48c0cb17d1a811c5

https://whatsonchain.com/tx/31d763c7657c41916bdca036a103a2b26366f85c37ec2003f19ec359c2c0d7b4


https://sym.re/Fz2Bvcf points to b://6c86f5ec4e06a7f59ccdb858322ed846cdbe3fb15f1b2e40b93cb8661c39e29d

https://whatsonchain.com/tx/84cdbe3b484b3308036713ca1d5a5edeaddc366271e821491a54a68b9fd6ae87

You can even use sym.re from within unwriters bottle:
bit://1SymRe7erxM46GByucUWnB9fEEMgo7spd/6d9NXRv
bit://1SymRe7erxM46GByucUWnB9fEEMgo7spd/Fz2Bvcf
(you need to connect bottle to sym.re first)

I think it and the magic attribution protocol need a better documentation. I did not really get from looking at it what it does and how it works. Not that I say that mine was better... With unwriter we have a great inspiration of writing a good docu.

I didn't get the power of MAP either until I saw it used by Twetch.

 

[cypherdoc]

oops:

 

[torusJKL]

Keeping Bitcoins in LN has an opportunity cost.
It could be that someone thinks he is better off selling them then earning a few Satoshi.
[doublepost=1563375201,1563374180][/doublepost]

I didn't get the power of MAP either until I saw it used by Twetch.

The combination of B and MAP can maybe be compared with ERC20.

You can store whatever you want as a B:// file and then append MAP to define additional Metadata.
If you know Unix systems it looks like > B | MAP.

And if you want to make sure that only you can create valid content you can append HAIP and sign for the data with your key.
In Unix style that would be B | MAP | HAIP

Twetch does exactly this (only that they use AIP instead of HAIP and they do not yet really sign and just add the place holder text "##computed_sig##")
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/97b348f7f28c4d9688046385517e27f05c3750d9572d9fe48e1742a0460c0080
[doublepost=1563375373][/doublepost]You can learn more about B | MAP here: https://map.sv/
And on b.map.sv you can search for MAP apps like twetch.

 

[trinoxol]

> Keeping Bitcoins in LN has an opportunity cost.

For professional LN nodes, the opportunity cost is another risk-free use of capital. Government bonds return maybe 4% p.a.. In order to receive money, users will have to buy liquidity at 4% p.a.. So you're earning a negative 4% of interest on your wallet funds.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Anyone interested in my review of "The Bitcoin Standard"? You can read it on yours and bitpaste (onchain):

https://www.yours.org/content/a-review-of-saifedean-ammous‘-‚bitcoin-standard‘--delusions-of-grandeu-be13771b37ef

https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/c1cd84fcd14bc57d8283774eb5f153da66ddaa2e0315c84e272d601f612fa99f

 

[cypherdoc]

see? ALL Bitcoin developers of any significance have or eventually reveal their identity. i only know of one who forked the code and still hasn't:

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@torusJKL shit, seems like both of us are really building the same

Now I have to start my troll factory to fight toxic stupid insane map protocol

I only wish we had users...

 

[lunar]

 

[BldSwtTrs]

I hate to say this, but I think Theymos is right to be prudent regarding governments:

That's why I think the "respect the law and everything will be ok" mantra professed by Zangelbert is too naively optimistic.

Governments cannot be trusted blindly, humanity should be prepared to adverse scenarios, just in case.

And that doesn't mean I think implementing privacy on BTC or even BSV is the way to go, the only rational response to this kind of threat is the increase use of Monero.

Sorry to not be a maximalist guys, but future is risky and you deal with risks by keeping (technological) options open.

Call me crazy but I think BTC, BSV, XMR, ETH, and maybe some others blockchain, may all have their utility for humanity in the future.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Sorry to not be a maximalist guys, but future is risky and you deal with risks by keeping (technological) options open.

or, by scaling rapidly. Bitcoin is behind schedule. the original hope many of us OG's had was for rapid adoption worldwide before gvts had a chance to react. this is why the 1MB4EVA policy was a huge red flag that caused me to speak out so early against Blockstream. here we are 2019 and one can wonder if gvt has won. fiat payments of all kinds have gotten easier, faster, and more liquid as providers have had time to adapt to the threat. is it too late? i don't think so but it's getting close. BSV with unlimited blocksizes is our only hope, imo. the other reason a locked down protocol is advantageous is not only to protect against dev corruption but gvt takeover. if the code is reproducible and accessible worldwide and not dependent on constant q6mo development (at least for the next 1-2 decades before QC), then it's chances of surviving are greater. can you imagine gvts rounding up all known BCH devs? it'd be all over. in a week we go to 2GB and then next Feb unlimited with the lockdown. the hope is that BSV explodes as a result as after that, it can't be touched. afaic, rounding up nChain devs would then not matter.