Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[theZerg]

Thanks @AdrianX, I'd appreciate your vote!

We also again have a clear conflict of interest there where both anonymous members are committing to BCHN so are clearly deeply involved in a competitive client. They should have voluntarily given up their membership a long time ago.

 

[cbeast]

@cbeast ; when csw said hed roll his assbergs and segflaw, and then later he now likes the price of btc and he said people have life savings in btc - thats because of grayscale lending legitimacy.

this apparently is the guy people are afraid of/ in awe of.

hes a dork for his lawl pron, fuck him, and youre a dork too if you promote lawl doom coming

I'm a businessman. I respect my competition, not scorn them. They are useful. Drafting is a common practice in any legitimate competition. It's fine to not lead through the entire race as long as you have the edge to win when it counts. In fact, BTC is saving CSW a fortune in educating the public about the dangers of penny stocks, since they seem to think things are different this time. He has time to build his patent portfolio, his IP lawsuits, and make deals with big data startups. Staying out of the media radar is healthy. It's the BTC coping strategy to try to defame him, but nobody is paying attention except crypt0 shills. Call me whatever, I laugh at your fear.

 

[bitsko]

I'm slightly amused at the notion this was all going as intended.

 

[AdrianX]

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

 

[Zarathustra]

You are plagiarizing the great philosopher Mike Tyson

 

[AdrianX]

I didn't plagiarise anyone, you're making a false accusation I merely quoted Mike Tyson without attribution.

You misunderstand what plagiarising means, you may as well go back to the BCH cult.

If I said I'm the originator of that idea and those were my words and I said them, not Mike Tyson, then that could be considered plagiarising.

 

[Zarathustra]

I didn't plagiarise anyone, you're making a false accusation I merely quoted Mike Tyson without attribution.

It's a sin.

 

[cypherdoc]

Why does every piece of good news have to be laced with bad news?:

Back said he plans to contribute technologies like Liquid and satellite infrastructure to make El Salvador a model for the world.

El Salvador looks to become the world’s first country to adopt bitcoin as legal tender

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele plans to introduce legislation that will make it the world's first sovereign nation to adopt bitcoin as legal tender.

www.cnbc.com

 

[cbeast]

I'm slightly amused at the notion this was all going as intended.

Amusing? It's expected. Remember Amiga? Remember Sony Beta? Amiga devs led the way with professional graphics and kept the platform alive for a decade after its demise for tv and film. Sony Beta became the defacto standard for professional video. The plebs laugh while the pros pivot.

I'm still trying to understand your fear. I hope it's not just the numbers go down.

 

[Zarathustra]

@theZerg I was going to let my membersig defalt, after BUIP141 was rejected, but it looks like my membership expires next week and given your plee, I'll cast a vote, the motivation is the irational objections are mostly anonimoous.

• Number of ACCEPT votes so far: 5
• Number of REJECT votes so far: 5

 

[bitsko]

Amusing? It's expected. Remember Amiga? Remember Sony Beta? Amiga devs led the way with professional graphics and kept the platform alive for a decade after its demise for tv and film. Sony Beta became the defacto standard for professional video. The plebs laugh while the pros pivot.

I'm still trying to understand your fear. I hope it's not just the numbers go down.

No I dont remember that I was probably a child. Afraid?

 

[cbeast]

No I dont remember that I was probably a child. Afraid?

We were all young, but the point is that fundamental technologies adapt and survive. VHS won the public but died because the ecosystem was too small. Beta is still used today by pros. Businesses scorned Unix and subsequent versions and now use it daily. Good ideas find their niche, great ideas find their realm.

The Bitcoin White Paper and subsequent code contained a complete financial ecosystem that will allow it to survive anything. Mutations like BTC and ETH branched off to evolutionary dead ends. The economies they serve are too small for growth. They found their niche, but BSV is building a realm.

Unless you're a true psychopath, we all fear something. The truth, perhaps?

 

[Zarathustra]

Is Peter Rizun still BU's chief scientist? He doesn't even vote anymore. His last vote was on BUIP154_Re-elect_Peter_R_for_BU_Secretary.

 

[theZerg]

• Number of ACCEPT votes so far: 5
• Number of REJECT votes so far: 5

If you click deeper, you can see the vote breakdown so far. Its very interesting.

So far, everyone involved in the day-to-day efforts in BU development and management is FOR this.

The againsts are led by the anonymous leader of the competitive BCHN full node, and another anonymous user with commit privileges to the BCHN repository. Hmm... does this remind you of any recent history?

Regardless of your opinion of the level of "coopetition" (competition within a cooperative framework) that is or should be going on, the reality is that the CHIP process and by extension BCHN as the majority hash power holder has the last word on what features from BU can get deployed and therefore validated by the larger market. This ultimate authority is explicitly given to BCHN in the "dispute resolution" section of the CHIP process, AND since the CHIP process is non-binding on BCH nodes, BCHN de-facto holds this power anyway.

We are not interested in a hash war to assert our ability to validate these features (although the CHIP process recommends this as the recourse). That is the path of maximum damage to BCH and the larger big block community.

 

[theZerg]

@AdrianX check your PMs

 

[freetrader]

This ultimate authority is explicitly given to BCHN in the "dispute resolution" section of the CHIP process, AND since the CHIP process is non-binding on BCH nodes, BCHN de-facto holds this power anyway.

This is false on both counts, and I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the actual facts about the CHIP process, Andrew.

Here is what the Dispute section actually says, and you will note that it gives no such ultimate authority to BCHN at all.

Dispute resolution

We expect most serious, good-faith proposals to have clear outcomes, whether acceptance or rejection, that are unambiguous to both stakeholders and node developers. However, it is inevitable that from time to time popular node teams and stakeholders will disagree with proposal owners or detractors about a given proposal's outcome.

The process below outlines an objective, costly way to resolve such disputes, which should only be invoked very rarely. Proposal owners following and succeeding in this process should gain considerable ecosystem-wide persuasive power, as observed in the events preceding DAA upgrade of 2020.

At any time between May 15th and October 15th, a party seeking dispute resolution against a major node team should complete the following:

1. Gain a sustained supporting signaling from over 75% of the BCH hashpower for at least six weeks, via coinbase transactions.
2. Gain signed, verifiable support from at least 50,000 BCH in contemporaneous UTXOs, with a combined coindays of at least 3,000,000 BCH-days. In order to increase confidence, each stake should include or be accompanied by a similarly verifiable statement of identity, pseudonymous or otherwise. If an opposition effort is present, each of these metrics must exceed its opposition by at least a 3:1 margin.
3. Gain public support from at least 1 out of the top 5 custodial exchanges by total BCH volume. If public opposition is present, the supporting number of top exchanges must exceed opposition by at least a 2:1 margin.

It should be noted that this dispute resolution process still cannot, in the strictest sense, coerce any given node team into implementing any change. The unavoidable high cost and publicity for its completion, however, shall greatly increase the proposal's persuasive power, so that the node in dispute can either be convinced or abandoned. Its failure should have similar effects in the opposite direction, in that the cost of destabilization can be clearly demonstrated.

While futures markets have been used in the past as a persuasive indicator, it should be noted that futures markets are even more costly to establish than the above, and are typically only created when irreconcilable differences are leading to likely consensus forks. If such a market becomes reality, persuasion of existing node teams or proposal proponents/detractors is likely moot.

 

[Jonathan Silverblood]

So far, everyone involved in the day-to-day efforts in BU development and management is FOR this.

It was my understanding that BU as an organization wanted a broader perspective.

We are not interested in a hash war to assert our ability to validate these features (although the CHIP process recommends this as the recourse). That is the path of maximum damage to BCH and the larger big block community.

This is in my opinion ridicilous. The CHIP states that as a last-defense effort - the entire value of the process is the ability to build and foster concensus across the diverse set of market actors - the very same actors that I had understood that BU wanted its guidance from.

 

[bitsko]

looks like the same old core shit with a few technical upgrades

 

[Jonathan Silverblood]

We are not interested in a hash war to assert our ability to validate these features (although the CHIP process recommends this as the recourse).

The CHIP process does not state that at all - it seeks to validate your features based on their merit to the stakeholders through communication and discource. That might not be applicable to all features, as there are features that doesn't have present stakeholders, but could have future stakeholders. You pointed this out elsewhere, and I agree with you on that.

 

[bitsko]

meanwhile spv channels and other deployments on bsv will bring to fruition bitcoin's peer to peer functionality, a bunch of black flag waving politocrats will be endlessly dickering over protocol 'consensus' on irrelevant features wholly tangential to bitcoin or peer to peer cash.

Post automatically merged: Jun 7, 2021

BSV is just better; all around, than your radicalized circle jerk.