Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Dusty
Active Member
- Mar 14, 2016
- 362
- 1,172
The complete record of "The future of Bitcoin"
I understand that some of you were there, care to share some thoughts?
I understand that some of you were there, care to share some thoughts?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinabc
@deadalnix announces Bitcoin ABC (links is beginning, announcement is towards the end of his talk):
Hmm, my browser says playback on other websites (i.e. this forum) has been disabled by website owner. I hope that's a temporary condition!
But I'll replace the link with a recording of the talk that works as soon as I find one.
@deadalnix announces Bitcoin ABC (links is beginning, announcement is towards the end of his talk):
Hmm, my browser says playback on other websites (i.e. this forum) has been disabled by website owner. I hope that's a temporary condition!
But I'll replace the link with a recording of the talk that works as soon as I find one.
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
CSW said that they were poker nodes in the original version of the code, but wtf are poker nodes exactly?
On the panel, did Ryan Charles just independently announce that Bitcoin is Turing complete and can do everything Ethereum and many other altcoins can do, as well as confirming what CSW said two years ago and Nick Szabo and the Core devs just shook their head in response to?
That would be huge on several different levels. Gargantuan even. Potentially that obsoletes Ethereum and many other altcoins (with a view to obliterating possibly all of them), shows up the Bitcoin wizards and CS "experts" of Core, and establishes that CSW definitely is an expert (not to mention raises priors for the credibility of the other things he has mentioned that would be damning to Core and the notion that we cannot scale massively on chain).
That would be huge on several different levels. Gargantuan even. Potentially that obsoletes Ethereum and many other altcoins (with a view to obliterating possibly all of them), shows up the Bitcoin wizards and CS "experts" of Core, and establishes that CSW definitely is an expert (not to mention raises priors for the credibility of the other things he has mentioned that would be damning to Core and the notion that we cannot scale massively on chain).
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@Zangelbert Bingledack :
I listened to that discussion, and my understanding was that he said his partner had demonstrated that Bitcoin was "effectively Turing complete" and had written up some paper about it (not yet published apparently). Ryan later strengthened that by re-iterating and basically leaving out the 'effective' qualification. So yes, I basically understood it the same way, that he was announcing independent assertion of this claim, with a hint of more information being published on it.
A definitive proof of this claim would certainly rock the boat and maybe offset some of the bearishness that the blocksize impasse has introduced. Exciting times!
I listened to that discussion, and my understanding was that he said his partner had demonstrated that Bitcoin was "effectively Turing complete" and had written up some paper about it (not yet published apparently). Ryan later strengthened that by re-iterating and basically leaving out the 'effective' qualification. So yes, I basically understood it the same way, that he was announcing independent assertion of this claim, with a hint of more information being published on it.
A definitive proof of this claim would certainly rock the boat and maybe offset some of the bearishness that the blocksize impasse has introduced. Exciting times!
Word from CSW in #2pda channel of btchchat slack is that no gas limit is required, perhaps due it being a total Turing machine and shifting the halting to compilation (no idea what that means), which sounds better than Ethereum.
@deadalnix and @freetrader
Thanks for doing that! My prayers have been heard.
Is there anything to lose for e.g. Antpool to mine on both chains?
SW+RBF removed is great. But a SW tx is still a valid (non standard) transaction on the abc-chain, right? And there is no protection for a hypothetical Bip148 chain SW tx to not be broadcasted to the abc chain? (SW2X does add protection iirc?)
@Zangelbert Bingledack
TBH I never understood the "turing complete btc" stuff from CSW. Someone tried to explain to me, what he meant in the old video (with Szabo on stage) and that it was a brilliant thought and that we've missed a lot about Bitcoin's abilities. But I still don't understand what this is about. Sounds to me like "We do stuff with computers and put the result on the blockchain", which doesn't sound spectacular to me. I'd really like to understand more about this as many smart people seem to be so excited. (Although I still think Bitcoin without any scripting would've been better )
btw: Good job with the conference to the organizers. Looks like it brought some excellent people together. I'm excited for the future of bitcoin!
Thanks for doing that! My prayers have been heard.
Is there anything to lose for e.g. Antpool to mine on both chains?
SW+RBF removed is great. But a SW tx is still a valid (non standard) transaction on the abc-chain, right? And there is no protection for a hypothetical Bip148 chain SW tx to not be broadcasted to the abc chain? (SW2X does add protection iirc?)
I'd like to know more about the poker stuff in early Bitcoin as well. And what are semi-complete rings? Is that a term from graph theory?
@Zangelbert Bingledack
TBH I never understood the "turing complete btc" stuff from CSW. Someone tried to explain to me, what he meant in the old video (with Szabo on stage) and that it was a brilliant thought and that we've missed a lot about Bitcoin's abilities. But I still don't understand what this is about. Sounds to me like "We do stuff with computers and put the result on the blockchain", which doesn't sound spectacular to me. I'd really like to understand more about this as many smart people seem to be so excited. (Although I still think Bitcoin without any scripting would've been better
)btw: Good job with the conference to the organizers. Looks like it brought some excellent people together. I'm excited for the future of bitcoin!
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@freetrader Were you at the conference anonymously? Good work on the UAHF client!
[doublepost=1498959220][/doublepost]I forgot who's camera was used for the group photo from the celebration of Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP!
But the picture should be posted here ASAP.
[doublepost=1498959220][/doublepost]I forgot who's camera was used for the group photo from the celebration of Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP!
But the picture should be posted here ASAP.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
BTW...
If SegWit2x is a little delayed, and someone starts UASF on august 1st, an upgrade to more trx/s would be activated by Bitmain...
If SegWit2x is a little delayed, and someone starts UASF on august 1st, an upgrade to more trx/s would be activated by Bitmain...
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
I just couldn't help myself...
https://medium.com/@shludvigsen/brg444-why-do-you-have-a-farmed-facebook-account-3044da005a8e
https://medium.com/@shludvigsen/brg444-why-do-you-have-a-farmed-facebook-account-3044da005a8e
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,192
go1111111
Active Member
Some relevent tweets from seweso:
About a month back, I spent a lot of time in the btcchat Slack trying to get people to critically think about Craig Wright's claims, after noticing that he seemed to be really good at convincing nontechnical people that he knew what he was talking about, and was developing a following among big blockers. I worried that if left unchecked, this would make big blockers as a whole look bad.
I was not very successful in my attempts. I may have convinced a few people, but those who spoke up in the slack seemed remarkably determined to defend Craig, even though they weren't able to explain/understand the technical arguments that he was making.
As I feared, after 'The Future of Bitcoin' conference and the youtube video of Craig's talk being made public, the reputation of this conference and of big blockers is being damaged.
Aside from the stuff with Craig, big blockers are in a pretty good place. The industry looks like it's about to finally fork away from Core. That's the most important thing that could possibly happen in the near term by far. The Craig stuff is probably not a big enough deal to scare enough moderates with technical backgrounds away that they flock back to Core, but the more of a big-block spokesperson Craig becomes the more likely that becomes.
For non-technical people who feel drawn to Craig's claims, I suggest you pick a technical person who you trust and try really hard to figure out what they think. I thought it would be enough that Peter R. and Tom Z. didn't see anything in Craig's selfish mining arguments, but apparently not.
Justus Ranvier seems technically competent. I haven't heard him comment on Craig's arguments. If he told you that they didn't hold up, would that help? If not, what would it take to convince you that Craig isn't a good technical spokesman for big-blockers (and therefore, probably not a good spokesman in general if he keeps confidently making flawed technical arguments).
About a month back, I spent a lot of time in the btcchat Slack trying to get people to critically think about Craig Wright's claims, after noticing that he seemed to be really good at convincing nontechnical people that he knew what he was talking about, and was developing a following among big blockers. I worried that if left unchecked, this would make big blockers as a whole look bad.
I was not very successful in my attempts. I may have convinced a few people, but those who spoke up in the slack seemed remarkably determined to defend Craig, even though they weren't able to explain/understand the technical arguments that he was making.
As I feared, after 'The Future of Bitcoin' conference and the youtube video of Craig's talk being made public, the reputation of this conference and of big blockers is being damaged.
Aside from the stuff with Craig, big blockers are in a pretty good place. The industry looks like it's about to finally fork away from Core. That's the most important thing that could possibly happen in the near term by far. The Craig stuff is probably not a big enough deal to scare enough moderates with technical backgrounds away that they flock back to Core, but the more of a big-block spokesperson Craig becomes the more likely that becomes.
For non-technical people who feel drawn to Craig's claims, I suggest you pick a technical person who you trust and try really hard to figure out what they think. I thought it would be enough that Peter R. and Tom Z. didn't see anything in Craig's selfish mining arguments, but apparently not.
Justus Ranvier seems technically competent. I haven't heard him comment on Craig's arguments. If he told you that they didn't hold up, would that help? If not, what would it take to convince you that Craig isn't a good technical spokesman for big-blockers (and therefore, probably not a good spokesman in general if he keeps confidently making flawed technical arguments).
Interesting mix of presenters you had at the conference. Never heard about Gocoin, great to see a lone fighter succeeding with writing a full node (even without commit messages ).
Great presentation by Peter R (again). Isn't that the adversarial thinking, core does so much with it's 1e6 contributors?
If you think about it now, removing the signature from the transaction is such a major step (just listen to the sound of that sentence), that it's even more bizarre, how that "solution" has been promoted and pushed with such thoughtlessness.
[doublepost=1498985259][/doublepost]
If he comes up with a mining pool that has significant HP, everybody has to take him serious, whether he is the emperor of China or an Australian scamming genius. If he doesn't, he will be forgotten sooner than later.
His "presentation" wasn't very enlightening. It was a good summary rant about Bitcoins status quo, not more, not less. But he didn't say anything I would disagree with (afair). Let's see what his company comes up with.
).Great presentation by Peter R (again). Isn't that the adversarial thinking, core does so much with it's 1e6 contributors?
If you think about it now, removing the signature from the transaction is such a major step (just listen to the sound of that sentence), that it's even more bizarre, how that "solution" has been promoted and pushed with such thoughtlessness.
[doublepost=1498985259][/doublepost]
Don't take it personal, but that sounds like concern trolling.
If he comes up with a mining pool that has significant HP, everybody has to take him serious, whether he is the emperor of China or an Australian scamming genius. If he doesn't, he will be forgotten sooner than later.
His "presentation" wasn't very enlightening. It was a good summary rant about Bitcoins status quo, not more, not less. But he didn't say anything I would disagree with (afair). Let's see what his company comes up with.
go1111111
Active Member
Concern trolling as in you don't think I'm a real big block advocate?
Why do I post so much big-block advocacy on reddit then? https://www.reddit.com/user/go1111111/submitted/?sort=top
Why do I maintain a wiki that critiques small-block arguments? https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page
If you just mean "I can imagine someone who was concern trolling saying something that sounded like that", then sure. Concern trolls try to mimic actual concern, that's why they sound kinda similar.
Why would we want a spokesperson who makes lots of flawed technical arguments, as long as he also says "Core is bad!" in a way that appeals to us? If Craig continues to tarnish his reputation the negative consequences don't just fall on him, they fall on groups who promote him.
Your attitude of "whatever, let's see what he produces" would be fine if that was the attitude among all big blockers. Instead, a seemingly growing amount of big blockers are hyping him very hard.
Why do I post so much big-block advocacy on reddit then? https://www.reddit.com/user/go1111111/submitted/?sort=top
Why do I maintain a wiki that critiques small-block arguments? https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page
If you just mean "I can imagine someone who was concern trolling saying something that sounded like that", then sure. Concern trolls try to mimic actual concern, that's why they sound kinda similar.
Why would we want a spokesperson who makes lots of flawed technical arguments, as long as he also says "Core is bad!" in a way that appeals to us? If Craig continues to tarnish his reputation the negative consequences don't just fall on him, they fall on groups who promote him.
Your attitude of "whatever, let's see what he produces" would be fine if that was the attitude among all big blockers. Instead, a seemingly growing amount of big blockers are hyping him very hard.
No, I don't believe you are a troll, the same goes for seweso.
I'm sorry for "troll", replace it just with "unnecessary concern".
Big blockers have been polite for years and have been trying to be nice to everybody. That doesn't help. I don't care, if nullc runs around screaming "the big blockers are all following a scammer". I wouldn't follow CSW blindly even if he signed a trillion messages with a "satoshi key". There are idiots everywhere who are in desperate need of a leader (that includes people who beg Gavin "to come back").
Some people like what he is saying and that he is aggressively attacking the people who are the cancer of bitcoin. I don't see anything wrong with that. And again, we will see if nchain has an impact or not.
If nChain starts doing the stuff Matonis and CSW talked about, I am happy. If not, who cares.
And playing the "I (don't) believe it's Satoshi" game is funny, but won't change Bitcoin. I, personally, think, that there are some facts that make saying "he is definitely not (part of) Satoshi" a bold statement.
I'm sorry for "troll", replace it just with "unnecessary concern".
Big blockers have been polite for years and have been trying to be nice to everybody. That doesn't help. I don't care, if nullc runs around screaming "the big blockers are all following a scammer". I wouldn't follow CSW blindly even if he signed a trillion messages with a "satoshi key". There are idiots everywhere who are in desperate need of a leader (that includes people who beg Gavin "to come back").
Some people like what he is saying and that he is aggressively attacking the people who are the cancer of bitcoin. I don't see anything wrong with that. And again, we will see if nchain has an impact or not.
If nChain starts doing the stuff Matonis and CSW talked about, I am happy. If not, who cares.
And playing the "I (don't) believe it's Satoshi" game is funny, but won't change Bitcoin. I, personally, think, that there are some facts that make saying "he is definitely not (part of) Satoshi" a bold statement.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Moderates? Our side lacks fighters and suffers from too many moderates:
(And on top of that, he has the courage to go on a public stage and call out the toxic devs of Core / Blockstream by name - such as Luke-Jr, Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd - and tell them to fuck off. And it's about goddamn time someone stood up like that and fought fire with fire. I and many other people are goddamn sick and tired of Core / Blockstream being the only ones who are "allowed" to fight hard. They are simply bullies - and maybe it takes someone like Craig Wright - an eccentric, arrogant, capitalist mathematician - to finally stand up to those bullies and publicly tell them to fuck off).
