Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

Pre-emptive split, lol.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's happening.

Steve Keen
@ProfSteveKeen
We need a new economics. Help me build it
patreon.com/ProfSteveKeen/ Debunking Economics, Minsky UCL Honorary
Research Fellow
profstevekeen@moneybutton.com

https://twitter.com/ProfSteveKeen

 

[Richy_T]

Let's not forget that BU's effort was damaged by the bug in x-thin. It was a minor if critical bug but it was very damaging to the effort. I don't blame anyone for this really but I think it illustrates the importance of keeping your eye on the ball at critical times. Something I think BCH has failed to do pushing constant upgrades when the focus should have been adoption and providing the better Bitcoin experience. I kinda feel like we got Trojan horsed.

 

[Norway]

Well, BU has treated all bugs, both on own client and other clients in a professional way, AFAIK.

You can not say that about Vin Armani. I have seen demonstrated on my phone a serious weakness in CoinText. A fundamental and serious attack vector for the whole concept of CoinText. I don't know if it can be fixed or not.

I have told him many times on twitter. I can't PM him, because he doesn't follow me. And he keeps ignoring it and pretend it's not real.

I find his behaviour extremely irresponsible, but I will not put it out in public because I don't want his users to be robbed. I can't help being a bit rude after seeing his behaviour over time regarding this issue.

He finally answers me, if you follow this twitter thread down. And when I ask him for his phone number, he goes silent again. Like the penny finally dropped, maybe.

 

[AdrianX]

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.

I don't see that at all. I'm going to say "we" here when referring to BU and those who worked towards moving the transaction limit above demand. WE were working to accommodate the increased demand for use. The code and proposals released were never intended to split polarise divide bitcoin into an, us vs them, in contrast to your efforts and those of ABC when conspiring to fork off BSV and those of Core insisting on removing transactions limits be classified as an altcoin.

 

[bitsko]

There are bitcoin version upgrades, and there are those who would ensure a permanent network split in order to subvert bitcoin upgrades.

 

[Norway]

@AdrianX
Not sure if @Peter R was a part of "we" when he consulted (his words) parties in the split.

 

[Norway]

Vin Armani is such a poser. He is the CTO of CoinText, but he prefers to deny that there is any problem with his software/hardware/human solution in public rather than just sending me a PM. I have put a price on the fee I require to reveal the vulnerability to his company now. It's 1 BSV.

 

[freetrader]

There are bitcoin version upgrades, and there are those who would ensure a permanent network split in order to subvert bitcoin upgrades.

Why didn't SV use a pure soft-fork then?

You already had the support of Greg Maxwell (probably still do).

Yet you had to implement your permanent network splitting hard fork upgrade to 128MB when no-one needed that capacity (and still doesn't on BSV).

I remember all the fake news about institutional volume coming on SV (the name SBI comes to mind).
[doublepost=1568449341][/doublepost]Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190914081855/https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1542

This relates to:

https://www.bugcrowd.com/blog/the-uber-breach-extortion-does-not-equal-bug-bounty/

I recommended to BU officials not to tolerate people in their Slack who do not understand the line between responsible disclosure and extortion.

 

[bitsko]

Lol, the very freetrader, who saved us all from segwit, reasoning against increasing the maximum blocksize cap, in favor of splitting the network instead, and archiving the page.

 

[freetrader]

Somehow only in your feeble mind, @bitsko, can asking why BSV didn't use a soft fork to enable its bigger blocks (remember "no split"?) be considered "reasoning against increasing the maximum blocksize cap".

I didn't tell Shadders & Co to split the network. But raising the blocksize and mining a vanity block is certain to do the trick.

Nor did I do any "conspiring to fork off BSV". You (Bitcoin SV) needed no help, the only question is why nChain/CSW/Calvin lied about it and told people there'd be no split when we could all see their actions didn't match their words.

 

[bitsko]

The very person who coded around the insidious and depricative segwit softfork, suggesting to use such a hack for a known upgrade.

The tables have turned, there are two sides to the argument and three groups arguing them, crazy.
[doublepost=1568493375][/doublepost]for how long have you been against big blocks, freetrader?

 

[Zarathustra]

Yet you had to implement your permanent network splitting hard fork upgrade to 128MB when no-one needed that capacity (and still doesn't on BSV).

I remember all the fake news about institutional volume coming on SV (the name SBI comes to mind).

Sounds gregiotic.
After all, this project is capable of processing institutional volumes. Your smallblock chain is not. I support the smallblock strategy of 1MegGreg and 2MegAmaury. "Thou shalt not spam the mainnet!"

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I didn't tell Shadders & Co to split the network. But raising the blocksize and mining a vanity block is certain to do the trick.

Stop lying. ABC split the network, both technically and socially.

 

[cypherdoc]

Somehow only in your feeble mind, @bitsko, can asking why BSV didn't use a soft fork to enable its bigger blocks (remember "no split"?) be considered "reasoning against increasing the maximum blocksize cap".

I didn't tell Shadders & Co to split the network. But raising the blocksize and mining a vanity block is certain to do the trick.

Nor did I do any "conspiring to fork off BSV". You (Bitcoin SV) needed no help, the only question is why nChain/CSW/Calvin lied about it and told people there'd be no split when we could all see their actions didn't match their words.

and ppl wonder why i felt i had to come back

it was precisely to counter your bullshit. let me refresh your feeble memory. big blockists had for years been against the concept of soft forks, precisely b/c they involve a conspiracy of a few devs plus miners to change concensus rules. this is how we got the stupid HK agreement that never came to fruition b/c of the heresy of minority concensus. hard forks (albeit only when necessary) have always been the rally cry of big blockists precisely b/c they give the market (all the players, not just a few) a chance to vote on which fork to choose. thus why BSV instituted a hard fork, not a soft fork. get it, Mr. Saboteur? what are you, Greg's malformed offspring? furthermore, BSV did NOT employ replay protection to ensure it's viability from BCH miners, unlike ABC did to protect itself from BTC and unlike ABC did with rolling checkpoints and exchange collusion to protect itself from BSV. the BSV hard fork is what true freedom of choice looks like and it has taken hold whether you like it or not. meanwhile we're almost going on a year now for BSV survival and the grinding down of BCH continues, albeit slowly. the last straw will be the total removal of the limit come February when BSV can declare w/o a doubt that it is the true fork of freedom; where devs are finally removed from the economics of the blocksize debate once and for all. good luck, cuz you're gonna need it.
[doublepost=1568505454][/doublepost]

I recommended to BU officials not to tolerate people in their Slack who do not understand the line between responsible disclosure and extortion.

yep, you have censorship written all over you. like i said before, there's nothing free about you @freetrader

 

[Norway]

I want to give Vin Armani disclosure of the security issue in CoinText, but he doesn't want it. And freetrader wants me kicked out of slack because I'm a lot more responsible than Vin. So many people taking crazy pills...

 

[freetrader]

big blockists had for years been against the concept of soft forks, precisely b/c they involve a conspiracy of a few devs plus miners to change concensus rules. this is how we got the stupid HK agreement that never came to fruition b/c of the heresy of minority concensus.

That's in itself bullshit. It's like your memory doesn't even stretch that far back and you're too lazy to google.
HK consensus was an agreement to deliver a hard fork to increase the block size, an agreement violated by Core.
Miners waited to let the term run out on that agreement to prove Core was acting in bad faith.

hard forks (albeit only when necessary) have always been the rally cry of big blockists precisely b/c they give the market (all the players, not just a few) a chance to vote on which fork to choose.

Duh, that's what I've been proposing consistently all along.

I would not have had a problem with SV had nChain been upfront about disagreeing on the roadmap and wanting to split.
But the campaign of deception and social media manipulation made it clear that this was not an upfront operation.

thus why BSV instituted a hard fork, not a soft fork.

I was commenting on the "no split" rhetoric which was so popular right until BSV forked off.

what are you, Greg's malformed offspring?

I'd not be so keen to reveal my mental age as you are.

furthermore, BSV did NOT employ replay protection to ensure it's viability from BCH miners,

Showing that you don't understand the purpose of replay protection.
Hint: It's not to ensure "viability from ... miners".
Good gawd, I once thought you understood any of this.

the BSV hard fork is what true freedom of choice looks like and it has taken hold whether you like it or not.

You overestimate how much I care about BSV.

meanwhile we're almost going on a year now for BSV survival and the grinding down of BCH continues, albeit slowly.

Let's see how that goes for BSV.

the last straw will be the total removal of the limit come February when BSV can declare w/o a doubt that it is the true fork of freedom;

You're giving away too much of the plot.
If it wasn't so predictable, I'd ask that you use spoiler tags of some kind.

where devs are finally removed from the economics of the blocksize debate once and for all.

"good luck, cuz you're gonna need it."

It's clear that you don't understand that BCH devs are not the deciders of "economics of the blocksize debate".
I'm done wasting time on you.

 

[cypherdoc]

>HK consensus was an agreement to deliver a hard fork

I may have gotten that small piece of history wrong but as usual you're deflecting from the main point ; the use of the soft fork is right from the core playbook. which is why I'm so surprised to hear you advocate for this repeatedly. do you deny this?

>Miners waited to let the term run out on that agreement to prove Core was acting in bad faith.

No. they actually were desperately trying to get core to deliver a big block increase. that was the beginning of them getting repeatedly duped.

>Duh, that's what I've been proposing consistently all along.

No. you advocate q6mo hard forks. that's very different from a strategy of hard fork only for highly contentious issues like the limit removal. ABC uses q6mo hard forks in a repeatedly disruptive frequency to institute their own biases and policies and the market doesn't like that as it creates a shifting sands problem for big business. how can you be so economically ignorant about this simple concept? they're going to keep making mistakes like at the last hard fork.

>I would not have had a problem with SV had nChain been upfront about disagreeing on the roadmap and wanting to split.
But the campaign of deception and social media manipulation made it clear that this was not an upfront operation.

you're being deceitful once again. bsv was very open about what they were going to do and they did it; hard fork to a bigger blocksize and that's it. the only surprise was them sitting back and letting you self destruct.. it was ABC and you that got all paranoid and didn't want to let market forces play it out. this is why you guys instituted 10 block rolling checkpoints, a technique historically used by the worst altcoins going back to the earliest days while also colluding with exchanges and Jihan to block the market from choosing. that was amusing to watch. even Andreas Brekken couldn't believe it. bsv, as the new kid on the block, was brave enough to not institute replay protection, nor any of your checkpoints or collusion tactics. they had the higher risk of failure and the only thing they did to try and mitigate that was to go out and buy hash power, as they should have.

>I would not have had a problem with SV had nChain been upfront about disagreeing on the roadmap and wanting to split.


they did not want a split, as I've outlined above. they wanted to crush BCH in an all out free market war. nothing wrong with that as it would have resulted in one community. you believe in a world of multiple split/divided currencies; that's your MO that won't work. that's right out of the Cointelpro divide and conquer play book.


>I was commenting on the "no split" rhetoric which was so popular right until BSV forked off.

like I said, we were shocked to see the lengths that ABC would go to in violation of basic free market /bitcoin principles to preserve itself as a split coin. they were the ones that used checkpoints and collusion.

>Showing that you don't understand the purpose of replay protection.
Hint: It's not to ensure "viability from ... miners".
Good gawd, I once thought you understood any of this.

replay protection violates basic Bitcoin /free market and technical principles at several levels, the most obvious being how it coddles users from understanding a fundamentally competitive event and it prevents consolidation of miners to one chain due to the volatility w/o it. it's a chain splitting technique that to date has only ever been employed by ABC/BCH.

>You overestimate how much I care about BSV.

you care so deeply that you gave up ABC dev to be here full time trolling GCBU. lol.

>I'm done wasting time on you.

you ain't going nowhere. you've been assigned here. it's your full time job. how else will you get paid troll?

 

[bitsko]

 

[cypherdoc]

bravo. now you can see why I said Derek's conversion is a big deal and will be to Roger (unless he already sold all his bsv which is very likely). Derek clearly has a sound understanding of money and economics along with the ability to see this current situation as many of us early adopters. poor @freetrader.