Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 97. (Read 704531 times)

After reading the article, one thing comes to mind

Don't Smoke Crack.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHOQAT0-Mk

It's like he goes out of his way to be the Anti-Satoshi .
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/who-is-the-antichrist-what-does-the-bible-say-about

Describes Wright or Maxwell , Take your pick.  
https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/11/11/gregory-maxwell-admits-he-emailed-craig-wright-to-offer-assistance

---

Makes you wonder who the brains really is behind the Shark Pool
https://www.ccn.com/war-bitcoin-cash-startup-launches-mining-pool-to-attack-altcoins-bch-forks/

Does not look like Bitcoin Cash will take over Bitcoin...

Very good reads written by CSW
"Bitcoin is not anti state, it is pro honest government"

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/bitcoin-is-not-anti-state-it-is-pro-honest-government-1ab1ec0a9fba

pumpy probably wants moar shitcoins to pump instead of focusing on cash vs money.

So help me understand?

I am for no block limits, believing that emergent consensus will steer the ship. I like the re-enabling of the additional satoshi opcodes, which are primarily simple atomic instructions that can be used to build more complex functions. I am unconvinced that awarding preferential treatment to DSV is a good thing. All these considerations put me softly in the SV camp.

But I'd like to understand your objections. Unfortunately, I don't yet understand exactly what your objections are. Handwaving 'decentralization and control', while not quantifying -- nor even qualifying -- that of which you speak is not bringing any clarity to the discussion.

Yeah - I remember the incident. It was self-correcting, and BTC Guild never in the interim abused their outsized position. Relevance?


Unsure what Shadders expounding upon the nChain client dev process has to do with whatever point you are trying to make. I've had the complete presentation on deck for watching since this morning, but have not had time to absorb it. Can you be more specific about what you see as a problem?


This is a proposal for additional semantics attached to OP_RETURN. An OP_RETURN tx is already an explicitly prunable tx. What is the issue here?


Exactly how do you see this transition happening?


Exactly how do you see this transition happening?


Exactly how do you see this transition happening?


Are you aware of any satoshi coinbase txs with an OP_RETURN? Or am I misunderstanding your point again?

Hi J, I know your a very smart guy, maybe you have already checked this, but if you havent please do.


I first got thinking about btc guild...and as you can see what a united bitcoin community thought of that back then...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bq4ia/for_the_love_of_bitcoin_stop_mining_at_btc_guild/


I then saw this a few days ago, this is a centralized system they are proposing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNpo2mYcHGw
Jimmy good speech, but this is not what Bitcoin is about...

Then i read this and everything made sense to me....
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/fixing-op-fals-fd157899d2b7

"The aim was never to allow the creation of scripts that are designed to diminish the long-term viability of Bitcoin, and to this end miners will be able to recover this form of funds as if they were salvaging “sunken treasure”. This returns the coins into circulation."



+
OP_RETURN
We will be publishing a strategy where OP_RETURNS are published on a time basis. The amount invested into the OP_RETURN will set the length of time before these are removed and pruned.
" if a 100-KB file is to be stored for 1 year, miners’

V = T*S = 31,536,000*100/100 = 0.315 BCH

The exact figures would be left to market forces to determine. When the time has expired, a sunk fee can then be recovered by miners."



So,if you want to keep info stored on sv chain then you need to pay up at different time intervals...kinda like gas for eth.
make the permissionless blockchain into permissioned...
decentralized into centralized...
Control old keys...some very very valuable...
Is this the way faketoshi becomes satoshi, taking his coins.

Curious... What specific elements of SV do you think countermand your vision of "satoshi vision"?

Well, that's the point. It could render BTC vulnerable to chain death. BCH, OTOH, can live through a sudden and persistent drastic reduction in hash.


I don't think you've followed what I have written. Hash power can be directed to any algo compatible chain.


Meh. Avoidance of replay attack has several known trivial solutions. Irrelevant.

(FWIW, the scenario indeed seems unlikely. But pretty intriguing...)

Yes, an assumption. Not an axiom. Just following where that possibility leads.

Though, as I point out, CSW seems to always have at his disposal whatever hash necessary to achieve his objective.

You sound scared.

I don't see how you can label anything with a multi-Billion market cap a failure. Whazaat make you?

I don't think this will happen since unlike BTC they have a different difficulty adjustment period. I havent studied up on it but it should retaeget fairly quickly unlike BTC fixed 2 week period.

Also I dont see any orphans happening either since they are under a different protocol, the 51% attacks won't work.

The bigger issue is the lack of replay protection which might cause losses for some holders.

Weird assumption. Quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve?

Yeah, assuming that, and assuming Bitmain would need (and be willing) to redirect ALL of its BTC hashrate to ABCash... then yeah, some delays would be induced in BTC for some (undetermined) time. Too much assumptions and too little impact in comparison. Risk (as in Probability*Impact) = Low.

That being said, it is an interesting "possibility" that adds some more excitement to the event. Already got my popcorns

Time to save the real bitcoin BCH...

This is the only coin that is the closest thing to permissionless...we cant have a group dictating..major changes..
i have issues with both parties ideas,
 but after watching nchain recent video and reading this ..https://medium.com/@craig_10243/fixing-op-fals-fd157899d2b7
Sorry sv, i do not see this as satoshi vision at all.

I understand why nchain/craig dont want to fork off,
 They want BCH for satoshi coins (and other users)
 They want full control with patents...
 
(Then next they probably will come for segwet btc)


This cannot happen....MARKET MAKERS....if you want to survive we must stop this NOW


ABC alot hash is coming your way...But let this be a lesson for all...dont force changes...
and let us all have at least one coin that can call itself..
Decentralized/permissionless...
If not then BTC HAS FAILED and so have we.

It would be really good for your mental health if you just accepted that BCH is a failure. The likelihood is their shit forked coin will be too.

...or...

CSW is about to employ mad ninja judo skillz, to redirect bitmain's hash power to stall the BTC chain. Perhaps. (?)

In terms of known hash power, Bitmain's dwarf's CSW's - at least when you include that currently devoted to BTC. However, CSW has always had enough hash power to achieve his objective.
At the 2017 Aug fork, he had enough to mine the first blocks ensuring the viability of the BCH chain.
In the last few days, his hash power has ballooned to large majority for SV on the BCH chain.
Does he hold more in reserve? How much?

We know Bitmain holds a lot of BCH. This would indicate a commitment to ensure the ongoing viability in BCH. They currently advocate ABC. If they retain that commitment, things could get interesting.

CSW has indicated his intent to bury the ABC fork under the SV fork. In the case that he controls previously-unimagined hash power, currently in stasis...

CSW could deploy just enough hash power to indeed 'bury' the ABC fork. If Bitmain stays committed to the ABC fork, they would need to redirect hash power from BTC to BCH/ABC. Assuming again that CSW has quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve, he can continue to deploy additional hash power to keep ABC buried. In order to ensure the continued viability of ABC, Bitmain would need to redirect yet additional hash power from BTC to BCH. Bitmain in this manner could possibly be drawn into redirecting most or all of its hash power from BTC to BCH.

If Bitmain's hash power is redirected from BTC to BCH, what happens to the BTC chain? Is this enough to stall the chain? When is the difficulty retargeting?

If enough hash power is pulled from the BTC chain, this will slow down tx processing appreciably. This could be accompanied by a large volume of small-value txs (sometimes referred to as 'spam txs'). The BCH community has already developed flooding tools used in the Gigablock Test Initiative. This combination could crowd other activity out of the chain, making it economically non-viable. The net result would be rendering the BTC chain useless for economic activity. If sustained, possibly followed by chain death.

I am not attaching any sort of probability to the above scenario. But it is an interesting thing to think through.

You sound scared there, mindrust.

Cheers!

Some good view on SV coding, QA and bug bounty program

https://youtu.be/jNpo2mYcHGw?t=2090

It seems to me the most likely outcome is to remain with 2 or 3 different blockchains after the fork with BCH ticker on ABC or Unlimited.. ABC probably.. What go you guys think overall coin value of holding the same amount of BCH now compared to after the fork will incease or decrease? It should increase a little bit imho given that I could dump somewhere all extra coins from those different blockchains