79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
the majority of the BCH network is running BU.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Lol, this has nothing to do with spv or P2p. It's more of the opposite, two servers talking to each other. Not a bad idea, and hopefully it will scale to spv wallets (when we get some), but the misnaming is crazy.
Handcash and Money Button Restore Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash
Bitcoin was always intended to be sent peer-to-peer. Today we are happy to announce that Handcash and Money Button have partnered to implement a peer-to-peer transaction protocol between both servi…blog.moneybutton.com
What comes closest to spv is cashpay app.
hey @Mengerian, this true? 
:
Before that, Bitcoin ABC co-developer Antony Zegers caused a mini uproar with his fellow developers when he falsely claimed that “None of you reviewed or helped out writing any of the specs for the last few upgrades.” In 2019, an internal struggle spilled over into the public’s sphere after Zegers and Amaury Séchet abruptly severed ties with the Bitcoin Unlimited team right before a network upgrade.
coingeek.com
:Before that, Bitcoin ABC co-developer Antony Zegers caused a mini uproar with his fellow developers when he falsely claimed that “None of you reviewed or helped out writing any of the specs for the last few upgrades.” In 2019, an internal struggle spilled over into the public’s sphere after Zegers and Amaury Séchet abruptly severed ties with the Bitcoin Unlimited team right before a network upgrade.
BCH devs may be abandoning the project
The BCH network has begun to pay the price for its decision to abandon Satoshi’s vision of Bitcoin.
coingeek.com
kostialevin
Member
- Dec 21, 2015
- 55
- 147
BCH has two options:
- IFP
- A new Blockstream
yep, we called it long long ago. it's inevitable when you believe in q6mo self indulgence and don't understand economics.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
meanwhile, not a word from BU, the leading implementation.
----------------------------------------------------
for posterity:
----------------------------------------------------
for posterity:
well, i'm all for leading by action and not words. but @Peter R has correctly been sounding the bell (sorta) for a locked down protocol, which i think BU should get right on with this recent IFD opportunity. i'm not sure that gels correctly with @theZerg's outlook on the situation though. what would really help is if they removed the default blocksize limit altogether and then let miners adjust it as they see fit, similar to what BSV has done. and then, get out of the way in terms of protocol lockdown. not sure they're up to it.
Last edited:
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
where has been @Peter R sounding bells? i have not heard much ever since the BU membership decided to pay him a salary without first defining or asking for a job description.
perhaps if i followed twitter. in any case i was under the impression that only gullible BSVtards could possibly fall for such an obvious fraud vector as a fixed protocol.
@theZerg has in the past expressed the opinion that dev experimentation should continue until solutions are found that drive adoption. perhaps he has started to come around to the view that experimentation limits adoption, and adoption is not merchant adoption anyway.
meanwhile deadalnix seems not to have yet understood or accepted (!) that with ABC not in pole position anymore, his funders will pay him to maintain the software according to their needs -- that much is correct -- but neither them nor him have the power to change the protocol unilaterally. so it is not really blockstream 2, is it?
@freetrader really messed up giving the keys to ddnx at the birth of BCH, instead of sticking to his own org BU, which at the very least had set up itself in a way so as to disperse power and avoid the inherently unstable position of being a lead implementation at the whim of a single person with no structured decision-making process.
now the ball is back in BU's court, and we don't seem to be prepared or even to care.
perhaps if i followed twitter. in any case i was under the impression that only gullible BSVtards could possibly fall for such an obvious fraud vector as a fixed protocol.
@theZerg has in the past expressed the opinion that dev experimentation should continue until solutions are found that drive adoption. perhaps he has started to come around to the view that experimentation limits adoption, and adoption is not merchant adoption anyway.
meanwhile deadalnix seems not to have yet understood or accepted (!) that with ABC not in pole position anymore, his funders will pay him to maintain the software according to their needs -- that much is correct -- but neither them nor him have the power to change the protocol unilaterally. so it is not really blockstream 2, is it?
@freetrader really messed up giving the keys to ddnx at the birth of BCH, instead of sticking to his own org BU, which at the very least had set up itself in a way so as to disperse power and avoid the inherently unstable position of being a lead implementation at the whim of a single person with no structured decision-making process.
now the ball is back in BU's court, and we don't seem to be prepared or even to care.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
i don't know, i scan my vocabulary for adverbs to describe the appropriate competitive approach . . . "slowly" does not surface to the top.
as @Otaci has warned, the window to catch up with the BSV network's processing speeds is closing down. the BCH network is capped at 32MB/block, as engineers fear anything larger might cause the system to choke (further tests TBD). the BSV network has already shown it can digest blocks 2 orders of magnitude higher.
as @Otaci has warned, the window to catch up with the BSV network's processing speeds is closing down. the BCH network is capped at 32MB/block, as engineers fear anything larger might cause the system to choke (further tests TBD). the BSV network has already shown it can digest blocks 2 orders of magnitude higher.
German bund yields negative across the board:
US short term has righted the ship but for how long?:
this just does not look sustainable to me. blow off top? or sideways action for a coupla years with another grind higher? but you know what that means; entry into negative rate territory long term which i think would be terrible:
up load picturesBCH acting like a BCH:
sad sad sad:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Let's be clear:
Craig Wright put the focus on a protocol set in stone. @Peter R is just slowly recognising/admitting the value of a stable protocol while his personal incentives are to influence the protocol. Did Peter mine the checkpoints? No. Was he a consultant for the people doing it? Yes.
Craig Wright described Bitcoin as a small world network, a near complete graph. Peter, again, had to unwillingly admit that it is the truth. But he will never give Craig cred for pointing it out. Peter is defending his role as an expert.
None of the BU elected officers took my IBS paper serious. Peter tried to frame it as "pre consensus". But this technology is one of the two next generation scaling tech that nChain will roll out.
1) IBS removes the Block propagation time issue 100% by smoothing out the network load. When a block is "found", all the miner has to do is sending the block header to the other miners. A tiny amount of data making @Peter Tschipper's Xthin look like a huge, slow and dying dinosaur. (Other dying dinosaurs: Graphene and Compact Blocks).
2) Parallelization removes the limits of a single thread process.
I think BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) has become a zombie. Don't try to bring a zombie back to the living!
(Watch the brilliant series "Kingdom" taking place in late 1500 Korea if you don't believe me.)
Craig Wright put the focus on a protocol set in stone. @Peter R is just slowly recognising/admitting the value of a stable protocol while his personal incentives are to influence the protocol. Did Peter mine the checkpoints? No. Was he a consultant for the people doing it? Yes.
Craig Wright described Bitcoin as a small world network, a near complete graph. Peter, again, had to unwillingly admit that it is the truth. But he will never give Craig cred for pointing it out. Peter is defending his role as an expert.
None of the BU elected officers took my IBS paper serious. Peter tried to frame it as "pre consensus". But this technology is one of the two next generation scaling tech that nChain will roll out.
1) IBS removes the Block propagation time issue 100% by smoothing out the network load. When a block is "found", all the miner has to do is sending the block header to the other miners. A tiny amount of data making @Peter Tschipper's Xthin look like a huge, slow and dying dinosaur. (Other dying dinosaurs: Graphene and Compact Blocks).
2) Parallelization removes the limits of a single thread process.
I think BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) has become a zombie. Don't try to bring a zombie back to the living!
(Watch the brilliant series "Kingdom" taking place in late 1500 Korea if you don't believe me.)
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The problem is: It's never money printing in Capitalism. It's always additional debt creation that has to be served.
It's not Zimbabwe. They print money. We don't.
Fed finally getting its way :
We went through this already ; years ago. It's cyclical. In times of crisis like now, the fed does in fact print money. The presses are cranking right now as debt formation has fallen off a cliff, as the above article implies and as that fed monetary base graph shows. In 2008, they directly printed ~$4T. But yeah, during the majority of the bull times money consists of debt formation. The ever present threat of debt implosion as what looks to be impending right now, is what keeps inflation in check thank God for ordinary everyday living expenses, like food and gas. Student tuition, real estate, and stocks, not so much.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
@cypherdoc
Money comes into the world as a balance sheet extension.
This increases the debt. There is no net production of money. Non posted money is only available in Zimbabwe and other banana republics. They print paper and don't post it.
And the monetary base is peanuts compared to total government debt creation (money creation).
> In 2008, they directly printed ~$4T
When you buy a house, you go to the bank and then they also 'directly print' money to pay you out. But it's an extension of their and your balance sheet, aka debt creation.
Last edited:
bye bye Nordstrom's (JCP, Macy's, GAP, Kohl's, etc), Hello Dollar General!:
Perpetuating economic distress
Dollar General, along with other dollar store chains, while "sometimes [filling] a need in cash-strapped communities" where supermarkets have closed, are regarded not "merely a byproduct of economic distress. They’re a cause of it.” Dollar store chains, in "capitalizing on a series of powerful economic and social forces—white flight, the recent recession, the so-called “retail apocalypse”—all of which have opened up gaping holes in food access...might not be causing these inequalities per se, they appear to be perpetuating them". The rapid growth in dollar stores across the USA have created a “dollar store belt”. Studies found that dollar stores lacked fresh produce and nutritious food, and were less affordable per unit than big box retailers Walmart or Costco. Originally opened with local tax incentives, a growing number of municipalities have been adding zoning bylaws to discourage dollar stores.[60] Dollar stores tend to create fewer jobs and lower wage jobs than independent grocery stores.[61] Additionally, Dollar Generals stifle local competition, hurting the communities in which they're serving.[62]
en.wikipedia.org
Perpetuating economic distress
Dollar General, along with other dollar store chains, while "sometimes [filling] a need in cash-strapped communities" where supermarkets have closed, are regarded not "merely a byproduct of economic distress. They’re a cause of it.” Dollar store chains, in "capitalizing on a series of powerful economic and social forces—white flight, the recent recession, the so-called “retail apocalypse”—all of which have opened up gaping holes in food access...might not be causing these inequalities per se, they appear to be perpetuating them". The rapid growth in dollar stores across the USA have created a “dollar store belt”. Studies found that dollar stores lacked fresh produce and nutritious food, and were less affordable per unit than big box retailers Walmart or Costco. Originally opened with local tax incentives, a growing number of municipalities have been adding zoning bylaws to discourage dollar stores.[60] Dollar stores tend to create fewer jobs and lower wage jobs than independent grocery stores.[61] Additionally, Dollar Generals stifle local competition, hurting the communities in which they're serving.[62]
Dollar General - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
you've always made this argument and i may be only beginning to understand it. it's a good one. but let's play a thought experiment though: UST's, which the Fed prints dollars to buy, are priced in dollars. dollars though are just dollars as they are the fundamental currency unit against which everything else, including bonds, are priced against. if the entire US bond mkt went to zero in terms of dollar prices in a severe calamity and loss of faith in the USG, the dollars themselves would still be there but the bonds wouldn't. what's your response to this?
