Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

I think George Gilder just wants a stable Bitcoin value from day 1, but he doesn't have an answer to how. How exactly do you peg Bitcoins value to time? And what is meant by time in this context? One person's time? Or all living people's time that depends on global population size?

Craig's solution can't give a stable value instantly. But I think the market will sort it out over just a few decades and it will become the most stable measuring stick for economic value in the history of man.

 

[cbeast]

Nothing in the Universe is stable. I don't expect Bitcoin to break any fundamental laws in science. It's easy enough to peg tokens to anything by fiat. It's social constructs all the way down.

 

[Norway]

Bitcoin may not break any fundamental laws in science, but it's certainly solving the Bysantine generals' problem with economic incentives.

Gold and silver has proven to be very stable measuring sticks for value over thousands of years, and I think Bitcoin will become even more stable.

 

[cypherdoc]

master slave, eh? absolutely no one saw this coming:

 

[79b79aa8]

calin is using the wrong terms. the master/slave dialectic is a hegelian construct according to which a master ends up, in a sense, enslaved -- the relationship is mutually morally destructive. make of that what you will.

BCH's problem is more straightforward: even if séchet is somehow ousted, he will be replaced with other developers, whose future priority will be to solve, to the best of their judgment, technical problems, in order to deliver a product suited for payments at global scale.

BSV has sorted the technical problems, and understands payments as a tiny subset of general use case.

 

[cypherdoc]

"So how should the Fed proceed?"

BitCoins will stabilize. in fact,
look the hell out:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/its-time-for-the-fed-to-take-on-the-coronavirus-threat/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[cypherblock]

Ian Grigg agrees with my critisism of @Peter R 's bet.

Regardless of the bet, Craig's consistent failure here is that he looks at SM in the pre-difficulty-adjustement phase, when in fact it was never meant to apply there (evidence is in his own paper). The bet was just silly thing of 2 "big wigs" trying to stake their ground and generally acting like assholes to each other.

 

[Norway]

@cypherblock
As a miner, how would you defend against a selfish miner?

 

[AdrianX]

Emin explains quite succinctly why Selfish Mining won't catch on in this surprisingly accurate tweet.

​

 

[cbeast]

Took me a minute. lol

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

People are waking up.

 

[cypherdoc]

poor @freetrader

 

[cypherdoc]

so not only do @freetrader's extensive commits to ABC pre fork abruptly terminate Dec 2017, so do his personal blog posts on the matter terminate in Nov 2017. how do we explain the sudden loss of interest only to be revived at times of potential forks (BCH from BTC and now IFP)? :

https://ftrader.github.io/index.html

 

[cypherdoc]

@shadders and @Otaci

a couple of months ago I tried to get you guys to go on record stating that you'd never let CSW influence you to increase or manipulate the 21M BSV coin supply. I personally think it would go a long way if you could refute this theory and apparently I'm not the only one who'd like to be reassured. Steve Patterson at 1:42:35:

 

[shadders]

I think Calvin is right. The game is over. BSV won.

BU is over the hill, and has no fighting spirit.
Future tx capacity tweeks from BU are a drop in the ocean compared to enterprise upgrades.

Scaling:
The interesting part will be the drill down focus on what can not be parallelized.
The important part of a miner's job in timestamping verified transactions is the bottleneck.

Identify the bottleneck. Make powerful hardware like GPU do the job, Later, we will have ASIC's doing the bottleneck.

Solved that problem... Tell you after the patent is filed...
[doublepost=1583053889,1583052872][/doublepost]

@shadders and @Otaci

a couple of months ago I tried to get you guys to go on record stating that you'd never let CSW influence you to increase or manipulate the 21M BSV coin supply. I personally think it would go a long way if you could refute this theory and apparently I'm not the only one who'd like to be reassured. Steve Patterson at 1:42:35:

This sounds like an attempt to force me to commit to a position so on principle I will refuse to do so. I'm not in the habit of aquiecing to such demands just because someone on the Internet says I should. No one gets to tell me what public statements I have to make.

Although I'm perplexed why this question even comes up. The fixed inflation schedule is one of the two fundamental features of bitcoin which is something Craig has been very vocal about. Implying that he might try to change this one day is idiotic and implies some hidden malicious plan that Craig has been cooking up in secret for the last 11 years. If you think he's that evil just come out and say it, then at least we'll know where you and Steve Patterson stand.

 

[sgbett]

tbh cypher I think you are barking up the wrong tree on that one, with the recent chatter about issuance, contracts and damage, the 21m limit looks like it is just as "set in stone" as the other bits one might care about.

The reason being that the 21m was "issued" at the beginning as part of the tender offer at the point the protocol was made available to miners. The block reward is the distribution of those coins to miners in accordance with a schedule (also part of the contract) acting within their contractual obligations.

To change the software, such that the total consideration, or issuance schedule differs would be breach of contract.

For me this is a pretty tight guarantee.

 

[79b79aa8]

in any case, adoption no longer consists of small-time investors being convinced of the virtues of this or that coin (call that the 2013 model, on which talking heads seeking recognition are stuck), but of enterprise use. coin supply is not something that business implementing blockchain solutions on BSV even bother to discuss.

 

[cypherdoc]

If you think he's that evil just come out and say it, then at least we'll know where you and Steve Patterson stand.

"This sounds like an attempt to force me to commit to a position so on principle I will refuse to do so."

I'm not so defensive to think you're trying to force me to do anything by asking me what my position on CSW is, thus, I don't have a problem answering it; I don't think he's evil or the devil. but I will say that all CSW's talk about seizing coins, despite technically how its done, makes me uncomfortable sometimes. why? because gvt sometimes shoots first, gets it wrong, and will do everything to cover up any semblance of being wrong. by taking this position CSW does open up questions in many people's minds (not just me and Patterson; u/zectro etc for example) about how far he'd try to take this. will he try to lay claim to the 1M Satoshi coins without having the private keys? I honestly don't know. by you going on record against this, as the lead dev of BSV and the holder of the github keys, it could go a long way in alleviating peoples minds on this specific topic. but maybe you don't care about that; that's illuminating in and of itself. and you should expect to get questions like this being so high profile. it really comes with your position. I don't apologize for asking you to clarify your position on what I think is a relatively simple question.

 

[79b79aa8]

> will he try to lay claim to the 1M Satoshi coins without having the private keys?

but that sounds like FUD. it is plausible to say cross-border law enforcement coordination could in principle lead to the freezing/confiscation of coins deriving from criminal activity by applying pressure on professional, regulated miners. it is implausible to think cross-border law enforcement coordination could lead to coin reallocation. on the basis of what? a copyright claim? that's close to inconceivable: the strongest evidence would be required to even get started, and that means possession of keys -- in which case no reallocation is needed and the point is moot.

 

[cypherdoc]

no, on the basis of a protocol change. look, I agree it's implausible after all that's been promised. I've even argued vociferously why it wouldn't be possible. but none of us OG's got to where we are by assuming anything let alone taking anyone's word for it. I happen to be thorough and attempt to deal with any problems before they happen. our clarification of the Open Bsv license is a good example of how open discussion about forks got them to clarify the language in that document.

this first got my attention when u/zectro posted that reddit thread on coin stealing. I was the first one in there defending CSW but realized I couldn't point to anything concrete that could debunk his fud. I just want to be able to point to definitive statements from guys like BSV lead devs as to why this scenario shouldn't be able to play out as unlikely as it may be. it's really a question that could be answered with a yes or no.