Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
no, I said core devs were careful to keep the unspendability of those coins consistent before and after the introduction of the UTXO set construct. got to give them some credit.
what are you talking about? you do it everyday, here in this thread. and elsewhere, i'm sure.
The conspiracy theory that has become the kneejerk conventional wisdom is that Calvin Ayre is funding it all. And why would Calvin invest billions when it could so easily be vaporized? The anti-CSW crew, of this reddit/twitter stripe at least, is so gullible they'll swallow anything.
Last edited:
Who is this "we" you talk of?
I'm still part of the BCH community, as much, if not more so than the BSV "society". "We", are still watching you. Kid, yourself not, the more mistakes BCH make the harder the fall will be, I'm guessing you've sold your BSV then @freetrader?
Last edited:
Omar did something odd here.
He created 3 possibilities for voting No but only one for voting Yes.
This makes the poll open for interpretation.
You could take each No possibility by itself in which case none of them received more votes than Yes (31% vs 37%).
Or you can add them together to 63% in which case it has a clear majority against 37% Yes.
[doublepost=1575104516,1575103696][/doublepost]
Attacking your chain?
There was only one Bitcoin Cash chain and it belonged to both groups.
Both groups wanted to implement different rules while keeping the name.
There is only one way in Bitcoin to enforce rules, its described in the Whitepaper and it is through PoW.
The fact that one group was more vocal on social media doesn't mean anything.
If you think that was part of the voting process than you don't understand PoW.
On the other hand the group known today as BCH did far worse, they colluded with exchanges and cheated by implementing checkpoints in order to disqualify the PoW done by those which are today known as the BSV group.
They said "We are going to do a sprint, create a checkpoint, declare victory and assign the ticker to us so that the hash will stay with us from this point forward".
In my eyes the BCH group did the real attack.
sometime please tell me this isn't our very own beloved @Griffith who tried to purge BU membership of "non technical people, whatever the hell that means?:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Normally I think you talk some sense.
Here, you mix sense with nonsense.
PoW decided the issue. Bitcoin Cash, and the miners supporting ABC, had more hashpower, and the other group (SV) plainly lost. It was predictable, we told them (I count you among them since you stood with their ranks) beforehand, yet they didn't listen, insisted they would not split the chain, yet did so.
About the social media: guess who ran the "PoSM" campaign - even long before the actual fork? Coingeek and friends. Don't think we didn't notice. Don't think we didn't notice how that group's sockpuppets and shills tried to turn the narrative against majority of existing BCH community.
But in the end Faketoshi's plain obvious fraudulent behavior killed any chance of SV appealing to reasonable people.
About the rolling checkpoints, they can be removed as soon as the threat is gone.
This is an astonishing claim. As far as I know the rolling checkpoint has not been challenged by any competing chain of blocks created by BSV miners.
If you have evidence (instead of just whining) you can surely present it. Show us "the PoW done". If nobody does, it most probably doesn't exist. No PoW, no cigar.
From what I know, the rolling checkpoints have not been actually needed in practice, and can be removed transparently once BCH is out of any danger.
You can easily disprove this by providing a set of block data for an alternate chain that got blocked by these checkpoints.
That the majority hashpower chain which also had at least 3/4 of the community backing it retains the BCH ticker is just plain common sense. Do you think stealing the Bitcoin Cash ticker would be so easy?
Tsk tsk.
Last edited:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
As I said, the group today known as BCH did a sprint and than proclaimed unilaterally victory and exchanges assigned them the ticker.
This allowed them to get the higher market value and hence stay ahead with hash rate.
That's where the colluding with the exchanges comes into play.
That's the foul play.
As I said it doesn't matter in PoW who made PoSM.
The fact that you always have to come back to this shows that you don't understand PoW.
As a matter of the fact CoinGeek did not do PoSM but had a high signal in PoW by mining on BCH for multiple months at a loss.
No other miner (incl. Bitmain and Bitcoin.com did this). They just came in for a few hours to proclaim a quick victory.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
It was a done deal after a few blocks because the exchanges most possible were using the rolling check point code at the time of the fork.
There is no prove for this but I conclude it from the fact that part of the ABC repository was made private and that Andreas Brekken said that it was a done deal after 45 minutes.
Look at the blockchain.
You can see the PoW there.
This confirms that CoinGeek did not attack the BCH chain.
So what are you whining about? PoSM in a PoW system?
I agree in regards to the hashpower but who defined the time frame that decides the outcome?
Is it 1hour, 24 hours, 48 hours?
Again, the foul play from the group today known as BCH was that they set the time frame unilaterally and colluded with the exchanges to enforce it.
P.S. that you bring up 3/4 community support shows again that you don't really support PoW but some hybrid system.
Last edited:
can i be the one who decides when the threat is gone?
>limits will be raised when we allow it-@jtoomim
can i be the one who decides when we raise the limit?
[doublepost=1575133568][/doublepost]bottom line: those who want limits are pessimists. those not afraid to remove limits are optimists. can you not see it in the discourse?
[doublepost=1575133648][/doublepost]corollary: those who are optimists love free markets. those who are pessimists hate free markets (despite the fact that one's nick might include the word "free").
[doublepost=1575133742][/doublepost]
danger Will Roger, danger!
[doublepost=1575133884][/doublepost]quintessential example of a pessimist that affects us all: the NSA.
"we need to be able to hoover up all your private info to protect you". cuz drugs, child porn, money laundering, etc.
no, it is about POWER and has nothing to do with DANGER.
[doublepost=1575134152,1575133494][/doublepost]here is another great example of a real danger and it has to do with limits. a topic we're all very fond and familiar with. note how the plea just happens to come from a person already in the position of power:
I invite all BU members to read the following BUIP and discuss it.
BUIP141: Restrict voting rights for Non-publicly identified members
BUIP141: Restrict voting rights for Non-publicly identified members
@freetrader is the ONLY Bitcoin protocol dev of major prominence across all three derivative chains that remains anonymous, that i know of. @imaginary_username doesn't count as he is not prominent, isn't a protocol dev afaict, and isn't involved in the public video meetings. i remember @freetrader coming into the space in ~2015 and within a year and a half was proposing a hard fork to split BTC. he/they inexplicably inserted replay protection, one of several self serving ABC tactics to ensure survival in their paranoid world of imminent "DANGER". if they'd let it play out, BTC would've been destroyed to BCH's takeover, imho (actually, it wouldn't have mattered which coin won, point being we just wanted ONE winner to survive). IOW, why purposely create two coins when there could've been one and a reunited community? no, the losers wouldn't have left and taken their ball home as the paranoid threaten. they would've reorged over to BCH, reestablished continuity, and made the overall community stronger while solving a major debated question. but maybe a split was what was envisioned from the beginning from ABC's founders. it's consistent with @freetrader's plea that a plethora of coins bloom. sounds good on it's face, maybe, but then again a classic Cointelpro tactic; divide and conquer. and what good maximalist actually believes that drivel? then, @freetrader pushes his last trivial commit to ABC in Dec 2017, a mere 4mo after the fork, and inexplicably disappears. wat? the inventor/founder of a coin disappears with the recent excuse prompted by my questioning of "other interests"? wat? he doesn't like fame and glory and potential fortune? @deadalnix apparently does as do all the other protocol devs. yet, his only interest that i glean from his continued, constant trolling of this thread (from a singular position i might add as all the other pro BCH/BTC supporters have fled) is to be here, pushing what i consider to be an overall anti-Bitcoin narrative by promoting poor PoW principles and a half breed coin called BCH while attacking BSV constantly via one argument; Aussie Man Bad.
[doublepost=1575137337][/doublepost]i'd also like to remind ppl here about how @freetrader lied to me. when i asked him about when was his last commit to ABC on reddit about 6mo-1y ago or so when i first became suspicious about him, he lied to me by saying he had just pushed an ABC commit. i asked where when i didn't find anything on github, he wouldn't answer. finally, i got him to admit it was a push to his "private server". lol, wat? you consider a formal commit to ABC one that gets pushed to your private server? who answers like that except if you're trying to deceive and hope the questioner just goes away. whatever happened to that push @freetrader? i honestly don't trust this BCH.
[doublepost=1575137337][/doublepost]i'd also like to remind ppl here about how @freetrader lied to me. when i asked him about when was his last commit to ABC on reddit about 6mo-1y ago or so when i first became suspicious about him, he lied to me by saying he had just pushed an ABC commit. i asked where when i didn't find anything on github, he wouldn't answer. finally, i got him to admit it was a push to his "private server". lol, wat? you consider a formal commit to ABC one that gets pushed to your private server? who answers like that except if you're trying to deceive and hope the questioner just goes away. whatever happened to that push @freetrader? i honestly don't trust this BCH.
Last edited:
WTH is this? i never knew that.
now we're sanctioning closed source code? nice job, BCH.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
I'd like to know this too. It would certainly add weight to the theory BCH was hijacked by lunatic academics and anarchists, who have either no idea about, or no regard for, the economics of the real world.
If I believe it enough, it doesn't matter what evidence is presented to me, the world will bend to my will.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@cypherdoc gets desperate and starts lying.
Show the post.
[doublepost=1575156699][/doublepost]
Full quote of cypherdoc's slanderous post, for reference purpose
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1379#post-89872
[doublepost=1575158847,1575157898][/doublepost]>No, that's exactly what we wanted. A definite split from SegwitCoin. You're not on board with that - then fuck right off back to r/Bitcoin or wherever.
[doublepost=1575159108][/doublepost]so my question linked above is: "Why did you immediately leave BCH dev after the 2017 fork?"
his answer: "I didn't, you retard. Stop lying."
reply from me directly below. obviously i'm asking about BCH: "when was your last commit?"
his answer: "Fri March 22, two days ago. In a repo not visible to you because it's infrastructure."
[doublepost=1575158847,1575157898][/doublepost]>No, that's exactly what we wanted. A definite split from SegwitCoin. You're not on board with that - then fuck right off back to r/Bitcoin or wherever.
[doublepost=1575159108][/doublepost]so my question linked above is: "Why did you immediately leave BCH dev after the 2017 fork?"
his answer: "I didn't, you retard. Stop lying."
reply from me directly below. obviously i'm asking about BCH: "when was your last commit?"
his answer: "Fri March 22, two days ago. In a repo not visible to you because it's infrastructure."
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
So there we have it.
You asked about BCH dev, and not ABC dev.
Then you lie about it by claiming
You can retract your lie now or keep it up.
I'll leave BCH dev when I make an announcement to that effect, not earlier.
Lie upon lie. Keep stacking them up, @cypherdoc.
Secondly, you still didn't grasp that ABC dev != the entirety of BCH dev.
You asked about BCH dev, and not ABC dev.
Then you lie about it by claiming
I never said I pushed an ABC commit.
You can retract your lie now or keep it up.
The tone of my response indicates that I was rather pissed off at that the lie you tried to push there, as I did not leave BCH dev since the 2017 fork.
I'll leave BCH dev when I make an announcement to that effect, not earlier.
Lie upon lie. Keep stacking them up, @cypherdoc.
First of all, here you contradict your own lie. "4mo after the fork" isn't "immediately", and my last commit in ABC says nothing about leaving BCH development.
Secondly, you still didn't grasp that ABC dev != the entirety of BCH dev.
Last edited:
