- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
This is @Peter R trying to build a strawman. It's very dishonest, and I believe he is playing dumb here.
Peter's strawman is that Craig Wright is saying that old Merkle proofs can prove that a transaction output is unspent.
Craig Wright even points out the opposite in the article:
The BU secretary who calls himself Chief Scientist of BU does this for one reason only: He wants to make the inventor of bitcoin look stupid.
Check out Peter's disingenuous tactics here:
[doublepost=1570826101,1570825040][/doublepost]The reason that I post this here, is to make people aware that Peter is on a mission to discredit the inventor of bitcoin. Peter is trying to project an image of himself having a scientific mindset, but he's really just a guy with a grudge trying to discredit another person.
Peter is a classic technocrat, hiding his true agenda behind a veil of engineering terminology.
[doublepost=1570827218][/doublepost]This is not the first time @Peter R is doing stuff like this. When I pointed out the error in his own bet with Craig Wright, he did not correct his mistake. He doubled down and constructed a new hypothetical dimension never seen or proven in physics where the future is known to make the logic of his argument be mathematically valid given this unrealistic condition.
Is this dishonesty motivated by academic ego? Or is it financial?
Bitcoin is the biggest economic game in the world. Both @theZerg and @Peter Tschipper have admitted that they were on a secret payroll through their BUIP's to raise money for themselves.
Who else in BU are or have been on secret payrolls? @Peter R? @solex? @sickpig?
And who has been paying? What interest motivated the payroll for @theZerg and @Peter Tschipper?
[doublepost=1570827808][/doublepost]The campaign against the inventor of bitcoin, and a realistic implementation of bitcoin that scales to the world has been massive and underhanded.
Yet, I'm very optimistic. I believe that Daniel Krawisz is right here:
Peter's strawman is that Craig Wright is saying that old Merkle proofs can prove that a transaction output is unspent.
Craig Wright even points out the opposite in the article:
Source: https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/simplified-payment-verification/
The BU secretary who calls himself Chief Scientist of BU does this for one reason only: He wants to make the inventor of bitcoin look stupid.
Check out Peter's disingenuous tactics here:
[doublepost=1570826101,1570825040][/doublepost]The reason that I post this here, is to make people aware that Peter is on a mission to discredit the inventor of bitcoin. Peter is trying to project an image of himself having a scientific mindset, but he's really just a guy with a grudge trying to discredit another person.
Peter is a classic technocrat, hiding his true agenda behind a veil of engineering terminology.
[doublepost=1570827218][/doublepost]This is not the first time @Peter R is doing stuff like this. When I pointed out the error in his own bet with Craig Wright, he did not correct his mistake. He doubled down and constructed a new hypothetical dimension never seen or proven in physics where the future is known to make the logic of his argument be mathematically valid given this unrealistic condition.
Is this dishonesty motivated by academic ego? Or is it financial?
Bitcoin is the biggest economic game in the world. Both @theZerg and @Peter Tschipper have admitted that they were on a secret payroll through their BUIP's to raise money for themselves.
Who else in BU are or have been on secret payrolls? @Peter R? @solex? @sickpig?
And who has been paying? What interest motivated the payroll for @theZerg and @Peter Tschipper?
[doublepost=1570827808][/doublepost]The campaign against the inventor of bitcoin, and a realistic implementation of bitcoin that scales to the world has been massive and underhanded.
Yet, I'm very optimistic. I believe that Daniel Krawisz is right here:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Anyone thinking that BU is improving BCH with the latest release, think again.
- The default cap on chained transactions is still 25. Sounds familiar?
- A new baby is born in BU, and Core is the mother. Child Pays For Parent, a tool for full blocks, has finally found it's way to the Shitcoin Unlimited node implementation.
Watch the hand, not the mouth.
- The default cap on chained transactions is still 25. Sounds familiar?
- A new baby is born in BU, and Core is the mother. Child Pays For Parent, a tool for full blocks, has finally found it's way to the Shitcoin Unlimited node implementation.
Watch the hand, not the mouth.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
I totally agree. It's often hard to know exactly what final form code should take. But at some point, it's usually worth refactoring the code to cut technical debt. That doesn't necessarily mean heavily changing the code but making fairly safe modifications to remove cruft and properly compartmentalize code to make things cleaner to maintain going forward. When done in a timely manner, this makes future modifications significantly less risky and easier to test. It can also reveal undiscovered problems in existing code.
I believe there have been efforts to split things up a bit in Core but they have been unfocused and ultimately abandoned.
Last edited:
Given A does not need to speak with a node or pass the transaction to B via the internet. A, passes the transaction to B directly, so I assume A's transaction would never see the internet or an IP other than B's. This is the most appropriate way to broadcast transactions.
[doublepost=1570901969,1570900797][/doublepost]
Maybe BU should consider maintaining comparability with BSV in this case.
I agree following ABC, which in turn relies on Core, is insane, and it's even more insane if its because people feel CSW being involved with BSV is a deal breaker.
Last edited:
There is a lot of benefit that can be had from having to understand the cut and past, not just doing the cut and past. @awemany discovering what's probably the most destructive bug ever to make it into the Bitcoin code proves this. ABC and even BSV just cut and past and when BU had to do it it required review.
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
I wonder if bitcoinABC has considered seperating the signature data from the blocks for scalability?
"Maybe Core is correct?" (paraphrasing, but I'm sure I got the sentiment correct and I'm 93% sure I got the language correct.)
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
My thinking is:
If every deviation ABC makes from bitcoin core is expensive debt, they should rebase fully to core, given core is making bigger blocks anyways, ie, its doing more scaling(for free).
Cant wait for terranode, what happened to amaurys friend johannes vormorel?
If every deviation ABC makes from bitcoin core is expensive debt, they should rebase fully to core, given core is making bigger blocks anyways, ie, its doing more scaling(for free).
Cant wait for terranode, what happened to amaurys friend johannes vormorel?
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
I met Joannes Vermorel in Hong Kong last year and gave him this dilemma:
What is worse, bitcoin nodes crashing and staying down for 20 minutes, or full blocks?
He said bitcoin nodes crashing was the worst scenario. That's the BCH mindset.
What is worse, bitcoin nodes crashing and staying down for 20 minutes, or full blocks?
He said bitcoin nodes crashing was the worst scenario. That's the BCH mindset.
lol, apparently BCH mindset has morphed into BTC mindset. how sad. it never ceases to amaze me how small blockists put their own priorities ahead of the market of cheap tx's for all.
potential market participants are not stupid, especially after what happened in the blocksize wars. they need to be able to see /deduce /calculate that tx's will remain cheap under all circumstances now and into the far future and not be dependent on a dev team that gets around to lifting a limit when they're ready or willing or interested.
No one has ever written a white paper that includes an explanation of how "fee markets" are supposed to work. It's because they use fuzzy reasoning with no clear objectives in mind of how it is supposed to work. They don't even have a real world analogy of them being used in any financial sector. For years I've been waiting years for such a paper so I could critique it. If nothing else, utter nonsense is the main reason small blocks will fail.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Indeed it's probably true more than it is false that we (the BSVers) are all stupid.
This is a very intelligent believe @Peter R.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/diczj0/come_on_peter_rizun_the_abccoreons_are_wasting/
Imbeciles up ahead of us and millions more behind,
And we're laughing and smiling,
That's why I say we're all of us Imbeciles.
This is a very intelligent believe @Peter R.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/diczj0/come_on_peter_rizun_the_abccoreons_are_wasting/
Imbeciles up ahead of us and millions more behind,
And we're laughing and smiling,
That's why I say we're all of us Imbeciles.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
something to chew on:
https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/taxing-times/
the tax argument is plausible at best. if it comes to it, the IRS directive is subject to change.
https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/taxing-times/
CSW being prominent in the fight at the time of the bitcoin cash split, i do not remember.
the tax argument is plausible at best. if it comes to it, the IRS directive is subject to change.
i don't remember him being around either. but he probably is using "we" in the context of the big blockists; altho i wouldn't put it past him to be claiming credit for the movement either.
[doublepost=1571243218][/doublepost]anyhows, the whole concept of airdrop coins being income is stupid; no USD is involved yet you're expected to pay income tax in USD on a fork coin whose valuation is the definition of highly speculative the moment it is released undoubtedly on low volume? there's no such thing as FMV until at least a year goes by to make sure it doesn't outright die in the short term.
[doublepost=1571243424][/doublepost]no doubt the IRS looked at the increase in the combined value when BCH split from BTC and extrapolated that across the spectrum of all hard forks under the false conclusion that hard forks are additive. all one has to do is look at the combined value of BCH and BSV during that split to know that conclusion is ridiculous.
[doublepost=1571244002,1571242918][/doublepost]personally, from a legal tax perspective, i think CSW is talking gibberish.
[doublepost=1571243218][/doublepost]anyhows, the whole concept of airdrop coins being income is stupid; no USD is involved yet you're expected to pay income tax in USD on a fork coin whose valuation is the definition of highly speculative the moment it is released undoubtedly on low volume? there's no such thing as FMV until at least a year goes by to make sure it doesn't outright die in the short term.
[doublepost=1571243424][/doublepost]no doubt the IRS looked at the increase in the combined value when BCH split from BTC and extrapolated that across the spectrum of all hard forks under the false conclusion that hard forks are additive. all one has to do is look at the combined value of BCH and BSV during that split to know that conclusion is ridiculous.
[doublepost=1571244002,1571242918][/doublepost]personally, from a legal tax perspective, i think CSW is talking gibberish.