Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

I have no idea about the practical consequences of this. Maybe if liquid fails and Tobias' smart cards become a major success, someone buying blockstream will try to enforce the patents in op dsv.

Anyway... I just wanted to mention the imbalance of it. The bch crew is so eager to badmouth csw patents, while they don't care that Amaury insisted on implementing blockstream ip tech without real need (maybe except that he wanted to insult Andrew).
[doublepost=1578738247][/doublepost]Shit, the shitlord even enforced a split to get blockstream ip tech into the chain.

OK, this is a bit exaggerated, another reason for the split was the shitlord will to introduce a transaction sorting rule which will only maybe help anything if blocks are 1gb and you ignore the economics of orphans (if you know about it, you realize that prematurely preventing orphans is very dangerous)

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Well, you see the difference between "badmouthing" someone because they are trying to patent all (trivial) stuff right and left and somebody who implements allegedly patented stuff.
There was no split because of this OP_CODE, you know that that is not true and afaik Andrew is pretty content with what happened in regard to that. Doesn't matter if Napoleon wanted to piss of Andrew again or whatever but BCH has a working OP_CODE that does what Andrew proposed.

The split was about the sorting and whatnot, as you write yourself.

There is no reason to lie about Amaurys behavior / ABC's history.

 

[Otaci]

From my point of view, the point about patents is not whether some random open-source developer would be sued for violations, but that corporate customers will not even consider using a blockchain that has IP difficulties.
[doublepost=1578744430,1578743379][/doublepost]It really depends on your use-case. If you're aiming for a grass-roots anti-establishment technology then I suppose you don't care about IP.

Bitcoin was never about that for me. Bitcoin is global, for the entire planet, including commercial use, and the vast majority of the planet is not anti-establishment. With massive scale and use, Bitcoin will bring benefits for everyone, including anti-establishment types.
[doublepost=1578745252][/doublepost]These concepts also feed into other topics: the small block size of BTC could be considered rational if you accept that their user base are the anti-establishment types. There are so few of them that 1MB is plenty to serve the global population. 21 million coins is a lot for that select group of individuals.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Yes, the history of op dsv is very complicated. I guess you could fill a book with it.

IMHO Amaury gave it Andrew, as a political pledge, when nchain and ABC alienated, and afaik Andrew was everything but fine with it. But don't know how he thinks about it today.

Yes, it's different, but still a bit of double weighting.

@Otaci

Yes, that's how I feel to. If bitcoin is just for anti-establishment, 1mb and anti patent virtues are fine. But imho it would have lost the battle.

There is a fortress of defense for the outlawed, good, but the mass still is caught in bank and state money (not owning it) . That's far behind what I hoped for bitcoin.

Ironically, the anti establishment side wins most if there is mass adoption. But they can't other than preventing it.

 

[AdrianX]

The split was about...

...who and how bitcoin is governed. The sundries over what was being argued were trivial, it was about principles and process.

It is shocking to know BCH may have proprietary IP in its base protocol, the protocol should be free of IP. Companies innovate and compete on top of bitcoin, this is fundamental to success at scale.
[doublepost=1578792219][/doublepost]

If you're aiming for a grass-roots anti-establishment technology then I suppose you don't care about IP

One should care if your opponent can use that vector to attack you it is like saying I only chose to fight with a sword because this honourable 1 on 1 combat meanwhile your opponents don't care about your honour and use guns because they can.

 

[lunar]

 

[freetrader]

It is shocking to know BCH may have proprietary IP in its base protocol, the protocol should be free of IP. Companies innovate and compete on top of bitcoin, this is fundamental to success at scale.

More lies and bullshit.
I expect you are only parroting this anyway.

And after all the bitching about technicalities, now you are admitting it was about trying to govern the protocol in the way that the emperors without clothes wanted.

It is shocking to know BCH may have proprietary IP in its base protocol

Not nearly as shocking as knowing that the entire BSV ecosystem is being constructed upon proprietary IP by nChain which is mostly bullshit.

Good luck with the fraudsters, I hope they clean you out as you deserve.

 

[torusJKL]

Not nearly as shocking as knowing that the entire BSV ecosystem is being constructed upon proprietary IP by nChain which is mostly bullshit.

Patents can be enforced on all chains.
If anyone thinks they are safe because they are on BCH than they are a fool.

BSV that uses features that all existed in 2009 does not have to fear any patents from any company at the base protocol.
BTC and BSV who implement new features could potentially introduce a features for which a patent might have been filled.

And of course nobody will start to enforce the patents at the level of the end-user.
But patents can very well be enforced on businesses.

And sometimes fees can be introduced in very odd ways.
e.g. I remember paying hidden music royalties for every CD-R I bought because I could technically create a copy of a music CD, even though I used them for data backups.
[doublepost=1578835700][/doublepost]

There was no split because of this OP_CODE, you know that that is not true

Of course it is true.
nChain & CoinGeek were at that point against any change that would have moved BCH away from the original protocol (as created by Satoshi in 2009).
That became clear starting approx. August 2018.

 

[freetrader]

nChain & CoinGeek were at that point against any change that would have moved BCH away from the original protocol (as created by Satoshi in 2009).

Basically, they patented stuff and then told everyone that the protocol needs to remain frozen so it doesn't collide with what they patented.

Nice patent strategy. /s

Even Blockstream wasn't as bold.

 

[cypherdoc]

what protocol "stuff" have they patented?

 

[AdrianX]

And after all the bitching about technicalities, now you are admitting it was about trying to govern the protocol in the way that the emperors without clothes wanted.

My arguments were sound, what was important to me was the process. That's why I've given BSV a chance.
[doublepost=1578855016,1578853877][/doublepost]

Basically, they patented stuff and then told everyone that the protocol needs to remain frozen so it doesn't collide with what they patented.

Yes looks this way and P2SH is an exsample, however when you know the history and how it came about and the externalities I can understand why. This is not a deal-breaker for me and I understand why it may be for a company like BitGo.

Now what you do about this determines how you scale and who is in charge. To illustrate the risks if a company innovates on your chain and gets a patent do you change the protocol for the public good and circumvent the patents? If so who is going to be motivated to innovate on your chain?

nChian just showed us what was happening.

BSV has the seeds to decentralize by allowing others to compete on the same foundation.

Companies like BitGo are invested in this strategy too hence their support for limiting transaction volume and facilitating solutions that leverage P2SH. But who wants to lock them in as an incumbent critical infrastructure company for a settlement network at this scale?

Businesses compete with common rules (aka a protocol set in stone), not in an environment where the rules change and they lose their competitive advantage. (case in point the Core Cabal working in their interests to support rules they had assumed should be immutable eg 1MB limit while happy to add rules like Segwit that did not impact their business. They're hypocrites)

The scaling debate for those paying attention was about which rules are necessary (aka should be locked in stone as a result of the nature of the protocol), ABC didn't understand and folded early.

 

[AdrianX]

what protocol "stuff" have they patented?

In fact, they told ABC not to do something some time back because they claimed to have a patent for that. ABC called their bluff.

This is another reason astute companies would be hesitant to commit to BCH infrastructure.

The practical approach would be to wait and see if that was the case, wait for the patent or patent application to become public and then assess the validity. Proceeding otherwise is reckless.

CSW's not helping his case he's been slow to deliver, but I see him delivering. eg. In Arnhem 2017 he promised a pool before segwit but delivered late 2018. and by my calculations, he claimed to have 15% of the hashing hardware to come online in Arnhem. Month's later when we met in Vancouver what was 15% at Arnhem had been reduced to just 5% due to growth in difficulty they had yet to adjust their speaking points. At that meeting, we learned that they had yet to plug it in. When you flow the threads on CSW's claims they seem to pan out, you just need to know how to weight them, and not dismiss them.

 

[cypherdoc]

ahahahaha @freetrader. are you mad? :

"In a major legal victory for Dr. Craig Wright on Friday, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom said U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart’s sanctions order was too harsh a punishment for the Bitcoin inventor.":

https://coingeek.com/kleiman-vs-wright-judge-bloom-lifts-sanctions-issued-by-judge-reinhart/

 

[freetrader]

In fact, they told ABC not to do something some time back because they claimed to have a patent for that. ABC called their bluff.

This is another reason astute companies would be hesitant to commit to BCH infrastructure.

What, because of patent trolls?

I think you underestimate serious players. But good that you at least remember that nChain (or should I say CSW) already tried to bluff with a patent once, and failed.
[doublepost=1578868007][/doublepost]

ahahahaha @freetrader. are you mad? :

"In a major legal victory for Dr. Craig Wright on Friday, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom said U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart’s sanctions order was too harsh a punishment for the Bitcoin inventor.":

https://coingeek.com/kleiman-vs-wright-judge-bloom-lifts-sanctions-issued-by-judge-reinhart/

I don't read tabloids, cypherdoc.

Let's see Craig comply with the judge's orders. I have my popcorn ready.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Now it gets interesting.

What would this forum be without freetrader? Even if he was the submarine agent cypherdoc assumed, it's good he is here. Thank you secret troll agency

Re p2sh: it clearly correlates with nchain patents and sdk release. Don't know if this is intention or planing based on a commitment to the original protocol?

Similar to blockstream question: did they kept the limit because they wanted to sell their sidechain? Or did they develop their sidechain because they concluded bitcoin shouldn't scale onchain?

I never really liked p2sh. It never reached the state of wide interoperability on the user side, there are different protocols for transaction sharing of wallets. It's like all participants in a mailing list need the same mail provider.

If bsv developers deconstruct this and create a more user-friendly and private and interoperable standard for multisig based on public keys instead of addresses - and it seems they plan this with paymail - I am more than happy.

 

[cypherdoc]

What, because of patent trolls?

I think you underestimate serious players. But good that you at least remember that nChain (or should I say CSW) already tried to bluff with a patent once, and failed.
[doublepost=1578868007][/doublepost]
I don't read tabloids, cypherdoc.

Let's see Craig comply with the judge's orders. I have my popcorn ready.

this must piss you off :

 

[AdrianX]

already tried to bluff with a patent once, and failed.

I was saying, I know ABC called their bluff, but I am not saying it was a bluff, I'm saying it's too early to tell. I reserve judgment as there is no downside to waiting to see.

 

[freetrader]

Now it gets interesting.

[...]

Re p2sh: it clearly correlates with nchain patents and sdk release. Don't know if this is intention or planing based on a commitment to the original protocol?

Similar to blockstream question: did they kept the limit because they wanted to sell their sidechain? Or did they develop their sidechain because they concluded bitcoin shouldn't scale onchain?

We should ask Jon Matonis.

He worked for nChain, but allegedly left because of differences on its patent strategy.
That could of course be just a pretext for leaving early.

He is among, other things, remembered for endorsing CSW as Satoshi, without proof.

I'd pay to read an honest retelling of the involvement of Visa's Chief Forex Dealer in all matters Bitcoin.

 

[Zarathustra]

> We should ask Jon Matonis.

We should ask freetrader

> He worked for nChain, but allegedly left because of differences on its patent strategy.

He worked 'for' BU/ABC, but allegedly left because of 'other interests'.

> That could of course be just a pretext for leaving early.

That could of course be just a pretext for leaving early.

> He is among, other things, remembered for endorsing CSW as Satoshi, without proof.

He is, among other things, remembered for endorsing an avalanche of shitlord BS.

> I'd pay to read an honest retelling of the involvement of Visa's Chief Forex Dealer in all matters Bitcoin.

I'd pay to read an honest retelling of the involvement of BU's Chief Aussie Man Bad Cult Propagandist in all matters Bitcoin.

 

[freetrader]

I'm an Aussie Man Good propagandist.

Good aussie men like Julian Assange currently sitting in prison in Belmarsh, UK, while serial plagiarists, money launderers, signature forgers and kleptocrats are running around in the street and in the halls of power, and even pretending to have the Bitcoin project's best interests at heart.

It's all symptomatic of a larger rot.