the funny thing is not that he is mining BSV. it's that he pushes for changes in the BCH protocol in an effort to improve the bottom line of miners of his type (the benevolent type, as opposed to the profit seeking type, in chancellor's categorization).
('funny' is to be read with the same contempt as 'community' and 'consensus' in my previous post).
Not only has BU lost its relevance in the BCH space (besides being a cash cow) it is also hated for non-consensus changes.
e.g. the unconfirmed parents limit.
BU presented a great solution but instead of it being accepted by the other node software BU became a target of hate because this change made double spend easier while only BU was using the improved code.
As far as I know BU did not even get the price money from Satoshi's Dice.
It did not make double spends easier. this change does not affect the security of 0 conf transactions at all. They are the same risk with or without this change.
It did not make double spends easier. this change does not affect the security of 0 conf transactions at all. They are the same risk with or without this change.
Let's assume 10% of the hashrate is using BU with a unconfirmed parent number > 25.
All the others only accept 25 unconfirmed parents.
You make 25 transactions.
100% of the hash rate will accept them.
You make the 26th transaction.
Only 10% will accept it.
Won't you be able to push a different transaction to the other 90% once a new block is found and the 25 transactions are confirmed?
Only 10% of the network would reject it as double spend.
the funny thing is not that he is mining BSV. it's that he pushes for changes in the BCH protocol in an effort to improve the bottom line of miners of his type (the benevolent type, as opposed to the profit seeking type, in chancellor's categorization).
('funny' is to be read with the same contempt as 'community' and 'consensus' in my previous post).
The algorithm is broken.
It should not create this two classes of miners in the first place.
The same thing happens on BSV.
We saw just yesterday that sometimes it can take many hours until a benevolent miner finds a block (TAAL in yesterday's example).
Although changing the DAA is not the only option.
Another one would be to create more fees from transactions than the block reward.
This way longer block times would result in more reward for the miners who staid compared to those who only mined the short burst blocks with very few transactions.
yes @torusJKL i am not defending ABC's DAA. i just point out that toomim has lost credibility in proposing consensus changes. he has argued against removing the blocksize limit as it would put miners such as him at a competitive disadvantage, invoking legerdemain arguments about block propagation. these are demonstrably false given the fact that >100MB blocks have been repeatedly mined on the BSV chain.
BU presented a great solution but instead of it being accepted by the other node software BU became a target of hate because this change made double spend easier while only BU was using the improved code.
It did not make double spends easier. this change does not affect the security of 0 conf transactions at all. They are the same risk with or without this change.
@Griffith it looks like you did not read @torusJKL 's post thoroughly. you assume he does not know what he is talking about. i suggest it is time for you to review your ongoing assumption that anyone who sees promise in BSV is either malignant, retarded, or both. it does not reflect well upon you.
This thread is based on the assumption that one single* token protocol based on Bitcoin (BSV) will be dominant globally in the future because of the network effect. The goal of the thread is to figure out which protocol it will be as soon as possible with as much certainty as possible. This...
"[...] no concrete proposal has reached ABC at the time of this writing, which does not leave us with sufficient time to review adequately, simulate and test, and get feedback addressed before the feature freeze on August 15th.
Bitcoin ABC is therefore moving forward with the Grasberg DAA."
Amaury forgot to mention that he was asked to review the code on the BCHN repository.
BCHN has forked from ABC only a few months ago.
I would assume the DAA code would be very similar to what is needed for ABC.
So it is not the case that there was no code or that it would have been very difficult for ABC to understand or to merge it.
What is happening is that Amaury wants all code been done on his repository in order to stay the center of the BCH universe.
Hehe, this is 100% deja-vu; the same thing he did in October and November 2017. Shitlord's ego is far and away BAB's greatest liability now; I suspect that BAB miners will not be using ABC in Nov 2020.
Seeing the growing amount of BSV-related content on the site, the community would probably benefit from a dedicated forum for BSV development. Please feel free to nominate a moderator.
Seeing the growing amount of BSV-related content on the site, the community would probably benefit from a dedicated forum for BSV development. Please feel free to nominate a moderator.
IRS’s new Initiative should not come as a shock to investors paying close attention to legal developments or those who properly understand Bitcoin’s design and intention.
IRS’s new Initiative should not come as a shock to investors paying close attention to legal developments or those who properly understand Bitcoin’s design and intention.
BCH miner voting v. 7.0 courtesy of @freetrader .
will it work this time around? will there be a split? will ABC's go-getters impose their DAA solution once more? can we all just get along?
split or no split, while the BCH "community" endlessly putters about with protocol changes, and procedures on how to effect protocol changes, the BCH economy *does not get built*. BU devs react with disdain at the suggestion of considering a move away from protocol development to blockchain application development. people are stuck with the idea that once the protocol is distilled, even if it takes an unestimated number of years in addition to the 10 than have already passed, then adoption will materialize.
what could be driving this idea? i suppose it is the notion that there is nothing else of substance to build -- that an improved protocol, together with the roughly existing wallet and exchange system, solves global payments and puts P2P cash within everyone's reach. if the past couple of years have taught us anything, it is that this thought is naive. for a) blockchain is far more than P2P cash, and b) government issued fiat is not about to be displaced globally - the regulatory and fiscal obstacles are too vast even for the libras of the world, let alone BCH's engineers.
This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience, and keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
;
