Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

Here is the quote from Amaury:

here is a thing I find interesting, people who don't believe an argument one makes, then call into question a fact one uses to back up the argument often question the fact no the premise of the debate. When you present proof of the fact, it does not appear relevant.

This is a very insincere form of debate as the person is not arguing the central principle of the idea but just engaging in creating noise.

 

[AdrianX]

If 10 corporations are making up the network,

It's probably fewer than that, that set the public agendas and drive macro policy today. Hence the protocol needs to be set in stone, and those companies need to be competitive discouraging collusion.

 

[torusJKL]

The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead by @Peter R

Good article.

A market for these tokens is guaranteed if key exchanges cooperate by running software to enforce the issuance to the Hong Kong company (e.g., blocks that did not issue tokens would not be considered legitimate BCH by the exchange).

This is most possibly already arranged as the advocates are convinced that they will be able to orphan others no matter their hash power.

They colluded with the exchanges when the BCH/BSV split happened.
The connections are already in place and they can use them as often as they like (I guess there is also money involved for the exchanges).

It is my opinion that BU would not condone this radical departure that hard codes a third-party into the protocol.

I don't see how BU matters in this discussion.
The only pool that still used BU is Bitcoin.com and they clearly are for the dev tax.
BU has become a second class citizen in BCH.
It is only good for financing writing of the BCH specification.

It is 11 years later and we should be moving towards a stable protocol (without block size limits) and the role of the "protocol developer" should be waning.

Peter, you are describing exactly what BSV is doing.
Please put your hate towards CSW aside and have an honest and unbiased look at BSV and its technology.
You don't have to like CSW, you don't have to talk or agree with him.
But you will see that you agree with the BSV protocol.

 

[freetrader]

here is a thing I find interesting, people who don't believe an argument one make and then call into question a fact one uses to back up the argument often question the fact no the premise of the debate. When you present proof of the fact, it does not appear relevant.

This is a very insincere form of debate as the person is not arguing the central principle of the idea but just engaging in creating noise.

Where have I said it's not a relevant fact?

I acknowledge that @torusJKL presented a quote by Amaury that does say what torus claimed.

It is not insincere to ask for proof, Adrian, especially since so many arguments from the BSV camp are extremely intellectually dishonest.

So much so that I don't buy ANY hearsay argument from a BSV'er about what some BCH dev might have said, without proof.

 

[cypherdoc]

so so just like you asked torus for examples of what he claimed, why don't you give us some examples of what you are talking about?

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader?

 

[AdrianX]

Where have I said it's not a relevant fact?

LOL, your post reminded me of a pattern I've seen. I was just expressing an observation I've noticed, in the past. I haven't accused you of anything lately.

 

[AdrianX]

@torusJKL my only reservation is it explains very clearly why the people in control, doing the central planning ultimately make mistakes that result in corruption.

The argument hasn't addressed the key concern, in this situation and that's how this came about, the fact there must be a central authority hierarchy. The assertion was originally made by nChain affiliated investors before the BSV split and now it's become obvious.

I predict that there will be a huge shakeup if the principles Peter describes are understood by the people in control of BCH, or it collapses in on itself.

I'm leading towards the side that this is the beginning of the end and a collapse in imminent.

The relations between those in control run deep and I don't see any will to let ABC go. It's now a matter of throwing good money after bad, and "the developer service fee" is an admission that those with control want to distribute the risks of bad decisionmaking which is a bad decision in and of itself.

This sure is going to get interesting. If this developer service fee idea is withdrawn, then someone has to pony up a handsome lump of cash for ABC or ABC walks. and the downside of favouring ABC's development expenses with private funding exposes the centralized nature of BCH control.

And letting them go is also not an option as it'll be very disruptive.

 

[torusJKL]

This sure is going to get interesting. If this developer service fee idea is withdrawn, then someone has to pony up a handsome lump of cash for ABC or ABC walks. and the downside of favouring ABC's development expenses with private funding exposes the centralized nature of BCH control.

They certainly have painted themselves into a corner.
From here on it's a lose-lose situation.
[doublepost=1580106052][/doublepost]They can't make it voluntary because then most miners will not pay and those who do are in an economic disadvantage.

They can't retract completely because ABC has already made plans and have smelled the blood.

They can't go forward without rupturing the community.

And even if the community will stick together, this fund will be a constant battle ground for who and which project will get the money.

 

[torusJKL]

or unfavored due to a spotty record and perceived past unwillingness to serve miner demands in general (BU).

That's new to me.
Where did BU not serve demands of miners?
And why didn't miners not pay for features they require?

@imaginary_username

https://read.cash/@im_uname/assessment-and-proposal-re-the-bitcoin-cash-infrastructure-funding-situation-3e5179fc

 

[torusJKL]

@theZerg maybe you can shed light on this accusation.

 

[cypherdoc]

looks like my long term assumption regarding pooling based on experience is still correct. my characterization of BCH will also be considered correct long term; shitshow:

"Mining pools are not miners. Some mining pool happen to also own hashrate that they use on their own pool, we call that "self-mining". It usually amount to a fairly low percentage of the actual pool. A mining pool is a service offered to real miners, in exchange for a small fee. At no point in time are they free to act with this hashrate as if it was their own. The history of Bitcoin is littered with dead mining pool that tried to do exactly just that."

https://read.cash/@shadow-kwh/bch-dev-fund-a-response-from-an-opposing-mining-group-4397e64b

 

[torusJKL]

BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax

This is a risky move for BU.

 

[cypherdoc]

looks like my long term assumption regarding pooling based on experience is still correct. my characterization of BCH will also be considered correct long term; shitshow:

"Mining pools are not miners. Some mining pool happen to also own hashrate that they use on their own pool, we call that "self-mining". It usually amount to a fairly low percentage of the actual pool. A mining pool is a service offered to real miners, in exchange for a small fee. At no point in time are they free to act with this hashrate as if it was their own. The history of Bitcoin is littered with dead mining pool that tried to do exactly just that."

https://read.cash/@shadow-kwh/bch-dev-fund-a-response-from-an-opposing-mining-group-4397e64b

"It is even more unfair that these mining pools are not going to contribute at all. Beside BTC.TOP that has a large amount of self-mining, the other pools are NOT self-mining BCH, they will therefore NOT be affected by the tax and will not be contributing to the fund themselves."

" but it's for your own good, schleps"-Deng Xiao Ping
[doublepost=1580142925,1580142082][/doublepost]

BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax

This is a risky move for BU.

it's the right thing to do even if it does destroy BU and BCH. one has to remember that the ground zero problem/origin comes from @deadalnix and his whining for money and refusal to truly scale BCH via a blocksize limit removal. it's not fixable. the fundamentals of BCH and the fundamentals of ABC philosophy have been broken ever since ABC intervened with the EDA/POW (essentially day 1) and the institution of q6mo hard forks. everything since has merely been stacking further false assumptions and mistakes upon further false assumptions and mistakes. what we're witnessing is the ultimate destruction of BCH. the non cartel big block miners have no choice but to move to the only true BitCoin (one that does not depend on or is beholden to CSW); that is, a self driven unlimited BSV with it's original design principles circa 2009 that provides a solid stable protocol for all entrepreneurs, large and small, to freely develop upon w/o fear of being forked off technically and especially economically.
[doublepost=1580143619][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1580144000][/doublepost]the whining to be paid is the exact whining i heard from Lukey, Greg, & Toddler starting back in 2012 and resulting/culminating in Blockstream. this is the EXACT same thing and has already had similar results, slightly different mechanism, in stalling BCH at 32MB. ossification has already set in yet the ignorant BCH fools, like @freetrader, still somehow believe that "oh yeah, come the day when we get close to 32mb worth of tx's, we'll just lift the limit then". sure dudes, right:

 

[sgbett]

I suspect none of these people were around in 2015 and so they won't have already seen this story.

"My suggestion 32MB now, then 64MB in 2 years and 128MB in 4years then re-asses."

...time passes....

"There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for _years_."

... network grind to a halt, champaign corks pop...

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax

This is a risky move for BU.

So if members vote for buip143, bitcoin unlimited will make a hidden option to refuse the tax?

Like they did when members voted against ctor... Couldn't resist...

 

[AdrianX]

"oh yeah, come the day when we get close to 32M worth of tx's, we'll just lift the limit then"

The reason BCH won't get near that limit is that it's a limit supported by the current developers and miners, a business building for global scale needs guarantees that if they are successful they won't be limited like what happened with BTC. Post-Fidelity-Effect-Trauma. or PFET.

I once thought 32MB would be more than enough. When one looks at the opportunity available to us we need to think unlimited or limited by the physics, not centralized authorities. Centralized decision-making limits growth. Uncertainty in protocol changes is what is driving entrepreneurs to BSV. Entrepreneurs want to compete on a playing field that can't be gamed, not in a system where a development team can hijack 12.5% of the coinbase revenue to make protocol changes that may or may not make their business obsolete.

The BSV boogeyman got my support on principle, and no other reason. The game theory suggests they understand the motivation behind a protocol that can’t be gamed, and besides all the social media noise about dishonest behaviour, nChain have staked their reputation on this one principle, only time can tell if they stick with it, but if they get bitcoin then they get that it’s necessary for bitcoin to succeed.
[doublepost=1580162997][/doublepost]

... network grind to a halt, champaign corks pop...

...and we all move to a PoS SLP tokens.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

In the board room of a major corporation considering which blockchain to use:

"For Chain A we'd need permission from the reigning developer group who claims to be able to scale to our use case, possibly requiring us to pay them. However, the protocol is still not settled, so whatever we build may be nullified later if the developers feel like it. In fact there's a culture of adding new changes up to every 6 months."

"Chain B has already scaled and regularly undergoes stress tests far beyond what our use case requires. There is universal commitment among all parties involved in Chain B to adhering precisely to the protocol it established a decade ago."

"So, which do we choose?"

 

[cypherdoc]

look at that volume difference!:

 

[bitsko]