Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

Nothing wrong with direct payment. I could see this used across a number of competing coins even. We used to have Bip70 which perhaps wasn't used much (now deprecated), but did allow for direct person to merchant communication. Direct to IP is fine, although for mobile phones may present some challenges. Bluetooth and NFC are other options of course.

The KaChing protocol is all about direct payments to or from a device without network connection. Open licence for BSV only.

https://kaching.cards/katp.pdf

 

[Norway]

@VeritasSapere

Justin Bons is giving a good speech here. I don't agree with all of it, but he has many good points. What I like most about it, is that someone in the BCH camp is discussing governance and politics related to the protocol in an open and analytic way.

I think this is a good opportunity to have a civil and open discussion about this topic, and I'd like to hear what Justin and other BCH proponents think about these three issues he is raising in the talk in a BCH vs BSV perspective.

Many implementations changing the protocol vs frozen protocol:

- Politics
- Governance
- Risk of capture
[doublepost=1568210007][/doublepost]

 

[cypherdoc]

Haven't seen much of a dialectic here recently, sorry to say.

no one is forcing you to be here.

 

[trinoxol]

That Pay to IP article gives the crucial points: The seller creates the transaction and both sides communicate the Merkle paths. This is critical in a world where very few businesses will run full nodes. Certainly, most web shops won't. Craig explained this concept in the interview with Jimmy this summer.

It's kind of amazing that this was the plan from the beginning but almost nobody understood this. I guess the initial Pay to IP implementation in Bitcoin Core was a proof of concept. But the whole plan was not fleshed out. So I do understand why at the time people thought, P2IP was a flawed idea.

I wish Satoshi would have written a companion paper that lays down the roadmap to 5 billion users and 1 TB blocks. Had he explained all of this, which is now happening on BSV 10 years later, a lot of trouble would have been avoided.

I think most of his vision was laid out in various posts on the web but it was too scattered to be commonly known. The BTC people now even like to take his quotes out of context to show the opposite of what he said right in the next sentence.

I sometimes wonder what these guys think when they do that. Do they understand that they are dishonest, or does this have some moral justification in their minds? Some people are twisted.

 

[AdrianX]

A reminder that something like 90% of total hashpower (pre BCH existence) supported bigger blocks.
Adrian is being vague on many points,

I remember the facts. About 50% of some 6,300,000 TH/s (total of 3,150,000 TH/s) supporting bigger blocks, Today we have 97,400,000 TH/s so that 50% looks like 3% that's close to the total hashrate supporting BCH today.

 

[cypherdoc]

oops

bb code uploader

 

[freetrader]

I remember the facts.

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader LOL they were signalling Segwit activation after the NY Segwit2X agreement. If they wanted to increase the 1MB transaction limit, they'd have removed it and continued making 1MB blocks. What was evident is the code to move to 2MB did not even work, nor did it actually have genuine support.

The blockchain is the ultimate evidence it reflects history. Fake intentions are recorded, and so is the account of what happened. btw BTC still has a 1MB transaction limit.

FYI BU support was 50% at the time of that agreement it promptly dropped to 9% and soon after 0%. BU was indirectly compliant with that agreement the miners could have supported 2MB blocks and signalled for segwit and not adopted it.

Support for bigger blocks is hardly genuine BU is the only bitcoin implementation with parallel validation, a necessary feature that allows Bitcoin to function without a predetermined block size limit.

 

[freetrader]

@AdrianX wrong, that signaling was for Segwit2X (NYA). You can verify it yourself by reading the legend on the chart.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171211223713/https://coin.dance/blocks/proposals

You can't call that all "fake" and then claim big blocks support for BU at 50% was all real. That's just cherrypicking.

Sure, there can be a component of fake signaling, but @jtoomim 's early surveys of the miners suggested that a significant majority support increasing the blocksize beyond 1MB.

Support for bigger blocks is hardly genuine

Yet miners defend Bitcoin Cash.

BU is the only bitcoin implementation with parallel validation, a necessary feature that allows Bitcoin to function without a predetermined block size limit

Really? Then adapting BU for BSV should probably be a high priority for SV developers planning to get rid of maximum blocksize on their fork.

I can't really believe what you're saying is true however. Has parallel validation equivalent to BU's really not been ported into the Bitcoin SV client after what - nearly 10 months?

 

[bitsko]

Unfortunate that BU is only used to parrallel validate 2MB blocks.

Such is the developers choice.

No matter, BSV will have the tech in the next gen node software.

 

[AdrianX]

@freetrader no verification necessary. While I thought the 2X agreement would go through I never considered it a big block solution, 2MB blocks are still small blocks.

You can't call that all "fake" and then claim big blocks support for BU at 50% was all real.

I wasn't making the distinction you are claiming, I agree it does not seem like genuine support. I was saying BU had a more viable approach (in fact other than BIP101 the only viable approach) to removing the transaction limits and managing a sustainable block size limit S2X was just kicking the can, not a solution.

Really? Then adapting BU for BSV should probably be a high priority for SV developers planning to get rid of maximum blocksize on their fork.

Yes! Really! Good science is subverted by intolerance bickering and childish behaviours. BU and nChain's Chief scientists are to blame for acting like children and dividing the community over trivial issues.

nChain had partnered with BU and intended to build SV for BCH on top of BU, until the plans were sabotaged by rude and unprofessional behaviours from senior BU members.

nChain Completes Workshop with Bitcoin Unlimited and Announces Support for Bitcoin Scaling Initiatives

nChain Announces Technical Support for Bitcoin Unlimited Client Software

@Peter R created a PR nightmare for nChain. When Jimmy Nguyen took over as Chief Executive Officer he cut his losses and dumped BU. nChain built on top of ABC as a result and who could disagree with him, I would have done the same under the circumstances some BU members were literally telling nChain to take their money and "fuck off".

For the record BSV's does have parallelization on their road map, and it's desperately needed. The Big Block Fork that happened on SV could probably have been avoided had SV built on top of BU.

Ego, intolerance and childish behaviour are what set both nChain and BU back. Bitcoin progress has suffered as a result.

 

[freetrader]

@AdrianX

some BU members were literally telling nChain to take their money and "fuck off"

You wouldn't happen to have proof of that?

If you are referring to ordinary members, I suppose then the blame should not be laid at BU officials' door.

 

[bitsko]

replay protection is a subversion of the bitcoin upgrade process

 

[freetrader]

If you're doing an intentional split (like BSV), then replay protection is superior in protecting users' assets against malicious replay attacks.

The failure of the "chopsticks" initiative to force together what no longer belonged together, should be a lesson learned from the SV fork.

I'm afraid @bitsko, you understand as little about the upgrade process as Calvin Ayre.

 

[bitsko]

Freetrader, I know youre very skilled in the 'go fork yourself' process but this is the process of becoming not-bitcoin, like both segwit and french-segwit have demonstrated.
[doublepost=1568328625][/doublepost]who would have though it would be amaury to fulfull the new york agreement of seguette and 2MB blocks!

Amazing

 

[cypherblock]

no one is forcing you to be here.

Good for the occasional laugh, but little else unfortunately. Still there is hope.

 

[AdrianX]

You wouldn't happen to have proof of that?

If it does not exist in this thread, I'll take it back, but I can attest to the sentiment I was embarrassed for BU at the time.
[doublepost=1568334883][/doublepost]

If you're doing an intentional split (like BSV)

It was ABC who wanted to remove nChain from the decision making proses, and they designed the "upgrade" to be incompatible by preventing any competition.

I remember you preemptively releasing code to split coins while people were negotiating to try to avoid the split. Splitting coins immediately polarises people by creating winners and losers, and it forces people to double down. You earned the reputation of a vandal.

It's ABC who made their chain incompatible with the existing BCH, tehy should have implements replay protection. nChain was prepared to hash it out, ABC was not.

 

[cypherdoc]

>I remember you preemptively releasing code to split coins while people were negotiating to try to avoid the split. Splitting coins immediately polarises people by creating winners and losers, and it forces people to double down. You earned the reputation of a vandal.

yikes, the Saboteur.

 

[freetrader]

If it does not exist in this thread, I'll take it back

The new standard of evidence or what?

I remember you preemptively releasing code to split coins while people were negotiating to try to avoid the split.

So did Gavin, Jeff, Mike Hearn, the whole of BU (including you), and @rocks / @largerblocks with his "Satoshi's Bitcoin" before my efforts.
Is it nice to phantasize that a move to larger blocks using Emergent Consensus would not have split the Bitcoin network?
In hindsight we should have learned that this ignores how humans work, and sadly, BU never managed to deliver a convincing riposte to the academic parry against EC.
I think you can drop your nostalgia.

Splitting coins immediately polarises people by creating winners and losers, and it forces people to double down

Ouch, there you outed yourself as someone who doesn't understand hard forks.

Did you not have an equal amount of BCH as you did BTC before the fork?
Who exactly "forced you to double down"?

You earned the reputation of a vandal.

And you earned the reputation of a historical revisionist and dimwit.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yell. That it was bsv which split off is a common talking point. Whenever it is discussed you get to the point where ABC had to spit because obviously nchain wanted to split anyway in some future.

Like: I punch you, because you would have punched my anyway, so I can say you startet the punching.