Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I'm sympathetic to the idea that someday the base protocol will be "done" (except for fixing possible future crypto exploits). But the reality today is that wishful thinking does not make it so.
I don't think you realize the urgency to set the protocol in stone. Or the urgency to scale the capacity and demonstrate it to the world on the main chain.

Miners are running out of block rewards.

We have one shot at getting this right, and nChain is going full speed to lock down the protocol and scale for the world. All the other chains will fizzle out when the original bitcoin gains real momentum.

It's great to see @sickpig putting a BU node on the Scaling Test Network (STN). If BU's software is outdated, we will find out.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
> I don't think you realize the urgency to set the protocol in stone

It certainly looks like Satoshi was not able to set the core design into Andrew's Stone ...;)
Nevertheless, I'm still a fan of the Zerg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christoph Bergmann

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
devs gotta dev : and get paid for it. and you wonder why we get all these altcoins, corporate blockchains, parallel networks, ICO's, forks, etc :

 

Otaci

Member
Jul 26, 2017
74
384
I'd say... why not. It would great to put some stress on Bu code base.

Just looked at https://bitcoinscaling.io/

I'm going to set up a node and see how things will go in the next few days.

@shadders a part from the different network magic bytes there's and setting up proper set of seeders, are there any other code changes?
No, thats it (+different default network port). We purposefully kept the address formats etc the same as testnet because we wanted to avoid requiring an update to all the various tools etc out there.

Look forward to seeing BU on STN :)

EDIT: Almost forgot: 512MB blocks coming soon (on STN).
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
i would like to again question @solex 's conclusion that increasing capacity is idle unless there is adoption growth.

quoting him from slack (03/02/19): "The major takeaway from the first year of BCH is that massive capacity does not encourage massive organic usage. They key is adoption and network effect growth. BCH had a block limit 500x demand when the fork happened. [...] Basic economics have not changed and it does not matter if BSV has capacity 5000x organic demand (wait - it probably _is_ right now), the requirement for adoption is No.1 priority, always was. The BU implementation already has more than enough capacity for BSV and BCH organic demand - years out from now."

is the above conclusion warranted? it appears to rest on the assumption that massive organic usage is of a certain kind. and indeed, there being huge unused capacity will make no difference to my deciding to use crypto to pay for the proverbial coffee (if such an option were even available). the question is whether we can assume that this is the only kind of massive organic usage there can be, or the one that will take up first. ten or five years ago, electronic payments were rudimentary and it looked like crypto could massively disrupt them. but banks, paypal, apple et alia got the message and improved their systems, and will continue competing, with the enormous inherent advantage that such payments are in native currency. and while there are still huge contingents of unbanked and un-credit carded for whom such services might not be immediately available, these are probably also the people less apt to deal with currency conversion. in short, alice-to-bob payments among some significant portion of the world's population may not be where massive adoption comes from at fist, if it ever does. and i don't see any empirical reason to believe token-style applications will take up the slack.

on the other hand we have the fidelity effect. for instance, large institutional usage within and among financial institutions, or monetized data-heavy web 3.0 applications, might take hold on a blockchain that provides both the requisite capacity and the security. no such blockchain exists now: BTC has security but no capacity, and BCH/BSV have capacity but no security, being currently at the mercy of BTC miners.

so the question is: how to increase security to attract such uses? short of mining, what's in our hands is to increase capacity, such that usecases become possible, providing a reason for the hashrate to move over. i think this is at least as plausible a view as @solex's major takeaway above. and for that reason, I think it is a good idea to participate in the Scaling Test Network. thank you @sickpig for setting up a node.

BU clients must remain competitive on capacity. while we can continue to hope for end-to-end-user transaction growth, we can't be sure that this is the way the crypto market will evolve.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
>is the above conclusion warranted?

absolutely not. how can @solex say with a straight face that major institutions, as you say, aren't already looking/hunting specifically for the chain that allows them unfettered scaling TODAY without the potential interference from a bunch of neckbeards? esp after all Bitcoin has gone thru the last several years of major publicized blocksize debate with which they are very much familiar with? any chain/implementation that has a cap/limit today has loudly stated that they will be governed by technocrats from now and into the future, which is a no go, as far as they are concerned.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
and don't give me this about configurable limits being already in the code. anyone claiming they don't object to real scaling would remove limits as a default. b/c don't expect institutions to depend/trust on the words/promises of coders to change things in favor of businesses. this is just as much about perception and system wide coordination as it is reality. we can't have some doing it while others aren't; which is what the current limits are forcing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and bitsko

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
I would also say that it is not really a consensus change, in that way that the other items in the specification are. It doesn't change what blocks are considered valid or non-valid, it just determines which chain the node will follow in the case of multiple valid chains. Nodes can adjust the finalization "depth", so it's possible for them to change the default if desired.

In this way it is conceptually similar to BU's "Acceptance Depth" code. This is also a system that allows nodes to choose among competing valid chains based on something other than pure chainwork.
Multiple competing valid chains? PoW not the ultimate decider? This is on par with creating splitting tools prior to a Hard Fork. It's assuming and planning for failure, not success. The Bitcoin platform does not work in a multicoin environment, and we only have one chance at this, failure now could easy mean hundreds of years before there's another chance, maybe never. It's like having multiple TCP/IP stacks, you can't create a global money platform by partitioning it off into little Dev controlled Fiefdoms.

This is why the SV path is the only route to success. It has nothing to do with nChain or personalities. Bitcoin works as designed, and the most powerful schelling point, is to fix it, as it is laid out in the whitepaper and the original code. A Nash Equilibrium.
[doublepost=1553200137,1553199433][/doublepost]Note too, that the assumptions made, treat mining and non mining nodes as the same thing. Can you really see a miner using acceptance depth? - Hang on guys, let's turn the farm off, while we wait for the 10 block depth to be reached.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime."
The "core design" for the motorcar was set in stone back in the 1880s. Even though it was revolutionary it could still be advanced massively over the next 130 years.

 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
^ False equivalency and you know it.

Ignoring that the basics of the internal combustion engine have hardly changed since it was invented, there are no binding economic incentives for everyone to use exactly the same design.

A better equivalency would be road design.

[doublepost=1553201724][/doublepost]The space shuttle was designed due to the size of a horses rear end and the ruts on roman roads

http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html
 
Last edited:

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
> I don't think you realize the urgency to set the protocol in stone

It certainly looks like Satoshi was not able to set the core design into Andrew's Stone ...;)
Nevertheless, I'm still a fan of the Zerg.
I don't think that anyone reasonable person who has looked at either the code or the history can conclude that Satoshi left because he felt the project was completely finished. If you argue this, and you argue for > 1MB blocks then you are being inconsistent since he left that in. Even though he mentioned it could be removed later, he chose to leave it in so I guess its not "done".

You are arguing for the sake of it. This has got to stop.

devs gotta dev :
Its time to stop this idiotic "Devs gotta dev" saying. Its disrespectful. I could dev on anything both within crypto and outside it in telecom, automotive/aerospace, and embedded systems. Any reasonable dev could find a job easily. The field is in high demand you know... or I could just spend my time skiing and kitesurfing.

My track record clearly shows me to be against "code churn" changes. I have criticized and supported both BSV and ABC initiatives -- I'm not talking up someone else's marketing message, and I'm not pumping my own coin.

So when I tell you there are major issues with something its because there ARE major issues.

I'm not telling you what to do. You can choose to not have the feature that someone's been hyping. Or you can choose to make changes. But if you choose to enter some fantasy land where you ignore the guy who is staring at the code and telling you what's not in there, you will end up making bad decisions.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Its time to stop this idiotic "Devs gotta dev" saying. Its disrespectful.
i've been disrespectful of devs since i started this thread back in 2011 with devs gotta dev and it's variant "the geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created". who started me off was Luke, Todd, & Greg. you entered this thread willfully despite that position and i've never heard you complain about it until this last year when i made it clear i didn't agree with OPGROUP and GROUP. maybe it's b/c you wanted support of big blockists like me when it served your interests? well, i gave you that support, but look what happened to BU. a failure afaic. you got lost in complexity man; what with your alphabet soup of EB, AD, etc. that shits a farce that repelled alot of ppl. then the three BU hacks. then more complexity with OP_GROUP. the latter got totally rejected yet you persist on with GROUP. you'll never let it go, just like Chris Pacia and his CTOR "can't waste" code. and now, you don't even get to participate in BCH dev. it's brutal for me to say this along with unfair, but imo, it's an accurate history and i don't see you going anywhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KoKansei and Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
i'm seeing very positive trends from this:

https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/263c3da5b566e9d2ac221e69f851d54d9c65440116c25f67c553db33d3f9fb81

resulting in bigger blocks for the last month vs BCH:



with hopefully persistent higher fees b/c of bigger files (justifiably so) yet still eminently affordable for ordinary tx's vs BCH:



with higher median tx values than BCH:



and a steadily rising mining profitability since it's low on Feb 6 vs BCH:



should these trends persist, i believe miners will notice and move. i'm beginning to really like this idea of OP_RETURN being used for embedded immutable data while also being able to be pruned for ordinary tx users.
[doublepost=1553219067,1553218043][/doublepost]
EDIT: Almost forgot: 512MB blocks coming soon (on STN).
outstanding
[doublepost=1553219319][/doublepost]@Otaci i'm sure i don't have to remind you that businesses need to continually see you increase their tx ceiling capacity (blocksize) to do business with the ultimate goal to "unlimit" them asap.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
is this guy the best BCH can do? even he admits he sounds like a Core supporter; "muh full node dude". and he is. all BCH is is a small blockist chain with a 32MB limit:

 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
I don't think that anyone reasonable person who has looked at either the code or the history can conclude that Satoshi left because he felt the project was completely finished. If you argue this, and you argue for > 1MB blocks then you are being inconsistent since he left that in.
Why should I argue like an unreasonable idiot? I'm Zarathustra ;-)
It's obvious that he didn't. Otherwise he would not make Gavin his successor.

Even though he mentioned it could be removed later, he chose to leave it in so I guess its not "done".

You are arguing for the sake of it. This has got to stop.
I argued with Satoshi's quote that the core design is done. Nothing more and nothing less. It seems that everyone comes with different interpretations of that 'core design'.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh brother