Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

Not profitable unfortunately @Alicec, Bitcoin mining is too difficult for laptops or other PCs to expect to generate a profit without other specialized mining equipment (ASICs).

 

[Norway]

Breaking Rumour:
There will be a high capacity stress test on BSV performed by a chinese entity without permission from the Bitcoin SV developers in the next hours.

I hope it's true, and I think it's a very good thing whether they crash nodes or not.

UPDATE:
Looks like it's been moved to saturday at noon UTC. It's supposed to last for 1 hour.

 

[Alicec]

Runninga node, not mining. Is running or hosting nodes profitable for btc, bch or bsv, etc coins?

 

[bitsko]

no alice, but you can jobs on fivebucks.com

 

[scar]

Ian Grigg leaves the EOS project and puplished a new paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/8/170

Very interesting read!

"As above, a blockchain forms a novel method to store information on a public space, via a payment procedure [32]. As well as static information such as literature or news, we could also store the code for programs in much the same was as Github [33], and indeed, the underlying git system is very like a blockchain in many respects. These programs can be read freely as they are part of the immutable data of the chain. Each transaction that posts data on the blockchain costs money and thus it is uneconomical and non-incentivized to continue posting programs unless there is at least a minimum revenue possibility. A collection of on-chain applications can be made browsable via a portal such as Agora [34], forming a new channel for distribution of software (Figure 4). This lays the foundation for a long held ideal of programmers, being an independent marketplace where the developers can be paid for their work without any intermediates [35]. The space is fairly new at the moment of writing but it does not lack for novelty and innovation, including applications in art, music, money and weather. Other applications that could fit include IoT sensors over power grids, security systems or transport networks.

By employing the OP_RETURN op_code instruction of Bitcoin Script [7], a new world of application utilization emerges. Transactions can refer to and run other programs on a “pay per use” basis, allowing for programmers to ‘compose’ larger programs out of many smaller ones. An example of pay per use is found in Moneybutton [36]. With such tools it is possible to construct a ‘Metanet’ being an immutable version of Internet as we now experience it."

Another interesting aspect is the citation of the whitepaper:

"Wright, C. (Pseudonym: Nakamoto, S). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System; Whitepaper: Sydney, Australia, October 2008."

 

[freetrader]

Welcome, new shill.

 

[AdrianX]

@Alicec, running a node for the sake of the network is an artistic act, much like sweeping waves back on the beach helps those who don't want the sand to get wet.

There are legitimate reasons to run a node, e.g. mining, exchanges and payment service provides all benefit from supporting network infrastructure.

• In BTC the narrative is bitcoin can't be trusted if you don't verify your transactions.

The irony here is all transactions in blocks are valid. If not the block is invalid and the Bitcoin premise described in the white paper does not work.
Miners are trusted because of the motivation to get the reward. It's less secure to trust developers to write code that tells you your transaction is valid. (Developers are changing BTC code to make miners less relevant limiting Layer 1 and building and promoting Layer 2)​

• In BCH (ABC) the ideas are more practical you can trust the miners. However, there is still the notion that developers dictate the roadmap. ABC split off from the original network by bundling a bunch of contentious rule changes that would activate regardless of the mining support.

ABC colluded with exchanges to have their version called BCH with the understanding that the miners would follow exchanges, as that’s where they sell the BCH they mine.​

• In BSV, the miners are in charge, and market forces dictate necessary optimizations. BSV tried to have hashing war where miners vote with their CPU power, but the ABC developers just forked them off, there was no hashing war, just a fork at the first disagreement over the rules.

BSV is evolving in an interesting way, and the advent of the Metanet suggests there will be a plethora of entrepreneurial motivations to run a node for profit.​

You don’t need to run a node to get the benefits of a secure transaction on any of the 3 bitcoins, they all support SPV simple verification proofs to some degree. There are hundreds if not thousands of ways to verify a transaction on any of the 3 blockchains in a way that is independent of any centralised authority.

There is a lot of irony in the fact that BSV only practical interpretation of Bitcoin that resembles the concept proposed in the White Paper and it's further obfuscated by the fact that it is largely supported by what looks like a single entity. But given they are in the top 10 of a $370B experimental idea, and it's withstood Social media attacks from both BTC and BCH it’s looking viable.

BTC well that’s now just the greater fool network, and maybe that’s where society is going.

BCH well that’s run on ultraistic donations to developers who imply they will leave if they don’t get paid enough. They keep changing the rules making it hard for entrepreneurs to build on a solid foundation.

BSV is inviting for Entrepreneurs, ultimately they are the builders in the economy. They seek innovative ways to create and deliver value.

 

[cypherdoc]

Welcome, new shill.

from our highly interested anonymous saboteur, lol.

care to point to any similar highly referenced academic prowess from the BCH devs?:

Abstract

:
An exemplary paradigm of how an AI can be a disruptive technological paragon via the utilization of blockchain comes straight from the world of deep learning. Data scientists have long struggled to maintain the quality of a dataset for machine learning by an AI entity. Datasets can be very expensive to purchase, as, depending on both the proper selection of the elements and the homogeneity of the data contained within, constructing and maintaining the integrity of a dataset is difficult. Blockchain as a highly secure storage medium presents a technological quantum leap in maintaining data integrity. Furthermore, blockchain’s immutability constructs a fruitful environment for creating high quality, permanent and growing datasets for deep learning. The combination of AI and blockchain could impact fields like Internet of things (IoT), identity, financial markets, civil governance, smart cities, small communities, supply chains, personalized medicine and other fields, and thereby deliver benefits to many people.


5. Conclusions

Bitcoin’s creation in 2009 was a revolutionary idea in the financial world. It is considered as the digital cash of the new age. It is secure, non-centralized and can provide the world with “honest”, non-inflatable money. Game theory is utilized in maintaining consensus, without the need of any central corruptible authority, while competition with national monies can present a check on inflation, sorely lacking in the international financial system since the demise of gold as a real force.
Implementing a swarm of AIAs on the blockchain can form what is described as the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle machine, which could in turn, open a brave new world of applications for a better humanity from computer assisted governance to extinction level events predictions. With emergent technologies such as the human–machine interface and intelligence augmentation devices, able to decode human brainwave patterns, such an entity could directly interact with the human brain, use it as a dataset to acquire information on how it functions and ultimately, provide extensive knowledge in many fields of science, which was previously impossible to acquire. Using deep machine learning techniques, the evolutionary level of the algorithmic entity could reach unprecedented levels exponentially, by utilizing the big data acquired by smart contracts, everyday transactions, weather conditions, IoT or stored literature on a blockchain.
The interaction with such an entity could be achieved via interpreted commands using the transaction system. For this, blockchain tokens (e.g., coins) will be used as a means of transaction and fees are important. At the first stages of evolution the system would provide low-level programming support, but could be educated through machine learning to accept natural language interaction.
Finally, a point of discussion could be about “what happens next”? At this point, a reference to the great text of Isaac Asimov, “The Last Question” [55] is needed:
Can this chaos not be reversed into the Universe once more? Can that not be done?

 

[Zarathustra]

Welcome, new shill.

Welcome home, Ian Grigg!

 

[freetrader]

 

[AdrianX]

We live in a mess-up world. IP, aka Intellectual Property, aka Imaginary Property, is just an exploitable meme.

We live in a world where people who believe imaginary property is real, make it appear so. However, It's just imaginary, and if you can use imagination to solicit real-world behaviours all the power to you.

Moreover I applaud those who know how to use imaginary property to help people understand the difference between reality and make-believe.

Not long-ago people burned witches because they failed to understand reality, it took the accusation of a governor's wife being a witch to realise it was all fictitious. Needless to say, the Law took a positive evolution after that.

Love or hate Gandhi this statement is true now more than ever.

 

[freetrader]

"Not your keys, not your coins."

p.s. these screencaps could certainly be fake, I got them from the r/bitcoincashsv sub after all.

You know, the one where people post such totally non-cultish remarks:

 

[bitsko]

Welcome, new shill.

so salty.

don't get your corduroys in such a twist.
[doublepost=1564789454][/doublepost]

"Not your keys, not your coins."

oh i understand now

 

[cypherdoc]

"Not your keys, not your coins."

p.s. these screencaps could certainly be fake, I got them from the r/bitcoincashsv sub after all.

You know, the one where people post such totally non-cultish remarks:

for someone claiming not to give a hoot about BSV, you sure spend alot of time in BSV places.

 

[AdrianX]

There are 3 reasons I can imagine that would drive someone to spend a lot of time in BSV subs.

1) learn

2) develop strategies to disrupt BSV

3) 1. and 2.

 

[Zarathustra]

Is there anything more cultish than leaving development for no other interests than fighting one single personal god/satan? Nullc/freetrader's monotheism.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Alicec, running a node for the sake of the network is an artistic act, much like sweeping waves back on the beach helps those who don't want the sand to get wet.

There are legitimate reasons to run a node, e.g. mining, exchanges and payment service provides all benefit from supporting network infrastructure.

• In BTC the narrative is bitcoin can't be trusted if you don't verify your transactions.

The irony here is all transactions in blocks are valid. If not the block is invalid and the Bitcoin premise described in the white paper does not work.
Miners are trusted because of the motivation to get the reward. It's less secure to trust developers to write code that tells you your transaction is valid. (Developers are changing BTC code to make miners less relevant limiting Layer 1 and building and promoting Layer 2)​

• In BCH (ABC) the ideas are more practical you can trust the miners, however, there is still the notion that developers dictate the roadmap. ABC split off from the original network by bundling a bunch of contentious rule changes that would activate regardless of the mining support.

ABC colluded with exchanges to have their version called BCH with the understanding that the miners would follow exchanges, as that’s where they sell the BCH they mine.​

• In BSV, the miners are in charge and market forces dictate necessary optimizations. BSV tried to have hashing war where miners vote with their CPU power, but the ABC developers just forked them off, there was no hashing war, just a fork at the first disagreement over the riles.

BSV is evolving in an interesting way, and the advent of the Metanet suggests there will be a plethora of entrepreneurial motivations to run a node for profit.​

You don’t need to run a node to get the benefits of a secure transaction on any of the 3 bitcoins, they all support SPV simple verification proofs to some degree. There are hundreds if not thousands of ways to verify a transaction on any of the 3 blockchains in a way that is independent of any centralised authority.

There is a lot of irony in the fact that BSV only practical interpretation of Bitcoin that resembles the concept proposed in the White Paper and it's further obfuscated by the fact that it is largely supported by what looks like a single entity. But given they are in the top 10 of a $370B experimental idea, and it's withstood Social media attacks from both BTC and BCH it’s looking viable.

BTC well that’s now just the greater fool network and maybe that’s were society is going.

BCH well that’s run on ultraistic donations to developers who imply they will leave if they don’t get paid enough. They keep changing the rules making it hard for entrepreneurs to build on a solid foundation.

BSV is inviting for Entrepreneurs ultimately, they are the builders in the economy. They seek innovative ways to create and deliver value.

Tbh, I have sympathy for the 'my node, my node' party, just not for them to keep the whole system small. In bsv, the degree on which a lot of apps are dependent on two companies and one guys servers for interacting with the blockchain is concerning.

IMHO a non mining full node has several functions: it replicates the data, provides access to the blockchain for other parties, helps forward transactions, and allows to reduce ecosystem dependency from central third parties to interact with the blockchain.

 

[trinoxol]

The BTC crowds does not like SPV security and I think the BCH and BSV communities tend to not fully understand the argument. Let me present it here for you:

SPV security cannot detect certain changes in consensus rules. For example, a miner can create money for himself, he can increase the block size and he can even fill the block with random garbage bytes plus some transaction data.

That's because the SPV node is presented a proof of a) the POW and b) the existence of his transaction in a block. But whatever else is going on in that block, or in the past, is undetectable.

So if 90% of the network run SPV and the miners change the rules (e.g. blocksize increase) those nodes will simply follow those new rules without consenting.

Those 90% form the economic majority. This forces the remaining 10% to also accept the new rules because the old chain is worthless.

For that reason, it is thought that at least 80% of the network should run full nodes. Requiring a small blocksize is just a consequence of this.

My take: There is no realistic case where this is a problem. It's fighting windmills.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Oh, I don't care so much about rule changes. A rule change by miners will not stay unnoted and requires a cartel. Also, full nodes only spot it and don't prevent it.

I care more about network reliability, and I think a good, but not excessive number of full nodes is very helpful for it.

When miners are Service providers via APIs they might get in trouble with regulations...

 

[cypherdoc]

oops

https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1