wow, something really bad must have gone down between @deadalnix and Roger. or it could just be that Roger hadn't coughed up enough money for him. either way, @deadalnix is raging also against r/btc . BCH's future looks bleak :
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Sometimes it's better to have watchdogs on the outside that can't be trapped into engaging in criminal activity.
another pro bsv thread, lol . what a clusterfuck all based on the ideology that "limits" are somehow necessary and doable. @solex what say you? :
as far the hazard of having to reconfigure mining nodes every q6mo hard fork; didn't we learn anything from the July 2015 bip 66 chain fork/split unintentionally caused by a miner forgetting to upgrade one of his many network nodes?
> The real limit of BCH is 2MB, proven by the latest tx spike. I will not be surprised by a BCH split this year.
The 32MB limit on BCH was just a propaganda point, then? Apparently, it's 2MB or maybe 8MB. Why is the limit so low anyway? It seems better to have it at 32MB and reduce the limit should the need arise (maybe sustained spam attacks. The BCH community cares about blockchain size).
It's so funny how the BSV approach is proven right again and again, with BCH supporters often bringing BSV-type arguments. Roger Ver said in a recent video that he learned of a company that immediately would like to use the entire BCH capacity. I believe him. Hopefully, BSV gains enough credibility to take that business.
From my standpoint, BSV is clearly better than anything else. There's just this nasty credibility problem. I wonder how many businesses are turned off by this. There is a perception that BSV is a "dumpster fire" that can go away at any time. Nobody would bet their business on something like this (even if this is a false perception).
The emotions are running high in the BCH camp. Things must not be going too well. I wonder what's happening behind the scenes. Multiple times I got the feeling that Amaury is ready to leave for a better opportunity. On the other hand, with this kind of political behavior, who wants him?
The 32MB limit on BCH was just a propaganda point, then? Apparently, it's 2MB or maybe 8MB. Why is the limit so low anyway? It seems better to have it at 32MB and reduce the limit should the need arise (maybe sustained spam attacks. The BCH community cares about blockchain size).
It's so funny how the BSV approach is proven right again and again, with BCH supporters often bringing BSV-type arguments. Roger Ver said in a recent video that he learned of a company that immediately would like to use the entire BCH capacity. I believe him. Hopefully, BSV gains enough credibility to take that business.
From my standpoint, BSV is clearly better than anything else. There's just this nasty credibility problem. I wonder how many businesses are turned off by this. There is a perception that BSV is a "dumpster fire" that can go away at any time. Nobody would bet their business on something like this (even if this is a false perception).
The emotions are running high in the BCH camp. Things must not be going too well. I wonder what's happening behind the scenes. Multiple times I got the feeling that Amaury is ready to leave for a better opportunity. On the other hand, with this kind of political behavior, who wants him?
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
[doublepost=1567524465][/doublepost]This tweet is so good. I have to Twetch it and make some money....
What people and companies do on top of bitcoin is their business, a patent is nothing more than a state-granted monopoly, they exist. Anyone who wants one can get one all they need to do is invent something that has never been invented and register it with the state's innovation registry.
Being accommodating of companies and entrepreneurs who innovate with bitcoin fosters growth. forking them off for emotional reasons is asinine.
There should never be patents in the protocol itself and as far as I know, there are no patents in the Bitcoin BSV and BCH protocols, just people who don't want companies and entrepreneurs building a better world with bitcoin for emotional reasons.
Last edited:
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Anyone recall when wuille suggested 10-100mb cap, then hearn suggested bip101, then gavin tried just 20, then adam suggested 2-4-8, then toomim went for just 2 and then business tried 2 with segwit, and then BTC got segwit?
because what if someone couldnt run a node?
Well abc said 32, but its really 2, because what if a fucking lemonade stand cant run their index node right.
Imagine getting fucked over the same way repeatedly, lol, ouch.
This thread called it WELL before, wont get fooled again.
#nolimit
#abcstyle
#frenchsegwit
because what if someone couldnt run a node?
Well abc said 32, but its really 2, because what if a fucking lemonade stand cant run their index node right.
Imagine getting fucked over the same way repeatedly, lol, ouch.
This thread called it WELL before, wont get fooled again.
#nolimit
#abcstyle
#frenchsegwit
As long as we, BU just follow ABC everything will be fine in BCH, ignoring the problems with the centralized governance of protocol rules. BU can focus on research or other projects. BU has a bright future s far as I can see.
We have a few bad apples on board, but for the most part, I'm very optimistic about future prospects. It looks like we have all our BSV so that's very optimistic too. @Peter R can you confirm?
BU is not in the business of governing bitcoin protocol changes. I disagree with Jimmy's and Craig's criticism of BU, and I agree with the approach BU took leading up to the split. I also disagree with ABC and bitcoin.com approach to the split. BU is not in the business of governing the bitcoin protocol. There is no authority to appeal too to support one set of rules over another.
BU provided tools that allowed the player to come to the optimal outcome; none of the players chose to use our tools. @Peter R and Tom Harding were promoters of BUIP135 it would have given CSW his haswar; instead, there was no hash war, just a split engineered by ABC. Instead, BU was attacked, criticized and ridiculed the reality was all semblance of decentralized development was lost, I agree with @cypherdoc assessment of bitcoin ABC it looks very similar to Core in 2013/14.
I don't think all the criticism of BU was unjust either. Many members were irrationally critical of people in the bitcoin economy on both sides of the political debate, in particular, the anti-CSW support that damaged BU's reputation the most.
BU is nimble and can pivot with ease if it can't, it will become irrelevant.
Last edited:
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
BU should recommend itself publicly as the default BCH client and push for an 'upgrade day' to solidify it.
It should look to team up with Bitcoin.com, Coinspice, the green faction (paul w's people, forget the name) and all start promoting this idea.
The default should be big enough to allow failure, which inspires upgrade or redesign of doodlebutt.app and the like.
Either unseat amaury and his brady bunch or forever receive his kicks while being held down.
Cant believe Peter rizuns choices re: csw while he was funding security checks needed to build confidence to break free from not so benevolent shitlord. Im in BU and certainly there were times when he was more hopeful about its prospects than I.
It should look to team up with Bitcoin.com, Coinspice, the green faction (paul w's people, forget the name) and all start promoting this idea.
The default should be big enough to allow failure, which inspires upgrade or redesign of doodlebutt.app and the like.
Either unseat amaury and his brady bunch or forever receive his kicks while being held down.
Cant believe Peter rizuns choices re: csw while he was funding security checks needed to build confidence to break free from not so benevolent shitlord. Im in BU and certainly there were times when he was more hopeful about its prospects than I.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
BUIP XXX:
1) The public keys (xPub keys) of all BU funds should be public.
2) All fiat funds and spendings should be made public once per month.
3) Receipts of all spending should be documented in the transaction itself when possible (OP_return or other ways to do it).
4) All receipts should be made public in a single place so members of BU can track it in a conveniant way once per month.
As I'm not a member of BU anymore, I need someone to propose this on my behalf. @bitsko ?
1) The public keys (xPub keys) of all BU funds should be public.
2) All fiat funds and spendings should be made public once per month.
3) Receipts of all spending should be documented in the transaction itself when possible (OP_return or other ways to do it).
4) All receipts should be made public in a single place so members of BU can track it in a conveniant way once per month.
As I'm not a member of BU anymore, I need someone to propose this on my behalf. @bitsko ?
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@Peter R @solex and @theZerg does not own these funds. They were donated to the organisation, and these 3 people do not own the money.
As Craig says: Keys are not ownership. If someone steals the key to your car, they don't own your car, right?
Let's bring BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) under the light of honesty and truth. Criminals want the darkness from shaddows.
[doublepost=1567550272,1567549322][/doublepost]Shitcoin Unlimited (BU) can become the most transparent organisation in the world in terms of economy. This is where we want our governments to be, right?
As Craig says: Keys are not ownership. If someone steals the key to your car, they don't own your car, right?
Let's bring BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) under the light of honesty and truth. Criminals want the darkness from shaddows.
[doublepost=1567550272,1567549322][/doublepost]Shitcoin Unlimited (BU) can become the most transparent organisation in the world in terms of economy. This is where we want our governments to be, right?
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
