 would really prefer BULL times and this BELGIUM beer (i'm not a beer drinker BUT @ desperate times  ) Usually a beer with a bull is a beer that is going to fuck you up. Look out for the bull Look out for the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull Nobody makes Malt liquor like Schlitz |
|
|
|
 What's your opinion on this? Unnecessarily aggressive. |
|
|
|
So you choose to ignore the part where Craig recently said ...
He had plans to steal users funds.."sunken treasure" (User funds, is all of us...long term holders,dev funds, investors money, exchanges,whales wallets...)
and wanted to make users pay more than once to store info on the blockchain...like paying for gas on ETH.
Do you understand this?
Sure, I understand it. You don't seem to understand it however. For your characterizations are hyperbole. |
|
|
|
It is Wright who said he wouldn't accept other chain to survive and will commit every resource to kill it even for months/years. He has already lost the hashwar
From publicly available information, this is how it appears. But what makes you think that all relevant info is public? I work with what I have. Maybe SV have won the hashwar and killed ABC... in secret?  No, really, I would love to see this escalating soon because it is a great way to put to test some theories and principles of Bitcoin and verify the outcome. Do you still think Wright/Ayre camp may have some ace up his sleeve? To me it is all just a bunch of insane bluffing. Well, they may be bluffing. Another possibility is that there is something to this Squire/Samsung story, and that SV forces are secretly mining an empty ABC chain, waiting for time of maximum disruption to release it and cause all clients to abandon the current ABC chain. Who knows? It would be entertaining, though. And instructive. Even if there were some truth to the Squire/Samsung story (which I strongly don't think so) what you are describing are Wrights threats of attacking another coin (ABC) to cause maximum disruption (and presumably high economic loses) for no legitimate reason. Don't you think that action could have some serious legal ramifications? Well, from one perspective, such an action would be merely Nakamoto Consensus writ large. In orphaning the ABC chain, possibly repeatedly, the forks would be healed, and there would be a single Bitcoin Cash going forward. I imagine civil suits may ensue. However, a cursory reading of the last paragraph of the white paper would seem to be dispositive toward dismissing any such suit. And, even if it was considered not ilegal.... Don't you think ABC side could do the same to SV if they were willing to? Fortunately it seems like they don't want to go that route, unlike Wright... or this would be a clear case of mutual destruction.
Unknown, but seems unlikely. The hypothetical requires assumption of more SV mining power than ABC has displayed to date. It is certainly possible that ABC has also been mining a secret empty block SV chain as well. Hard to envision, however, where such hash power may have come from. ABC could also start later with greater hash, but that necessarily limits the depth of the potential reorg. The 'centralized checkpoint' is an interesting twist as well. How much economic weight is running code incorporating this feature? I was actually kind of surprised that the massive redirect from BTC to ABC came from Bitcoin.com. I had envisioned it coming from Bitmain. Perhaps Bitmain's hands are tied due to the pending IPO? |
|
|
|
maybe DOGE will turn out the be the real bitcoin in the end!
Impossibru. Doge genesis not derived from Satoshi genesis. |
|
|
|
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...
So 'splain me The SegWit Omnibus Changeset then? The funny part is that Bitcoin Cash in the form of SV is the closest thing to a Bitcoin Protocol 0.1 that we've had in almost a decade. |
|
|
|
Anyhow, it would be nice to hear about how guys like you and PeterR are considering or reconsidering their various allocations including allocating towards various bcash forks and allocating towards bitcoin.
I'm comfortable with my current allocation. Considerably more $ value in BTC than in BCH-SV + BCH-ABC. Way more BCH-SV than BTC, and way more BCH-ABC than BTC. I have a little more BCH-SV than BCH-ABC; I had some residual BTC on Poloniex that I exchanged for BCH-SV just before the fork. Minor holdings in Monero, Namecoin, and some shitcoins that may pump. so if you keep everything like this you will always have more $-value in BTC, By ' BTC', I assume you mean BTC? My operating thesis says different. |
|
|
|
Anyhow, it would be nice to hear about how guys like you and PeterR are considering or reconsidering their various allocations including allocating towards various bcash forks and allocating towards bitcoin.
I'm comfortable with my current allocation. Considerably more $ value in BTC than in BCH-SV + BCH-ABC. Way more BCH-SV than BTC, and way more BCH-ABC than BTC. I have a little more BCH-SV than BCH-ABC; I had some residual BTC on Poloniex that I exchanged for BCH-SV just before the fork. Minor holdings in Monero, Namecoin, and some shitcoins that may pump. |
|
|
|
Roger Ver and the Bitcoin Cash community said that, nodes do not matter, and the miners decide. Well the miners have decided. Bitcoin SV will be the real Bitcoin Cash! Hahahaha. What now? Will they say that non-mining nodes matter, and that users should decide? Or that Bitcoin SV is an attack?  No. ABC redirected 4Ehash from BTC mining to Bitcoin Cash ABC mining in order to show mining strength. Then I believe that it only illustrates that Bitcoin Cash ABC is so centralized that there are actors that have enough hash power to 51% attack it trivially. Thereby demonstrating the fact that non-mining, fully-validating clients (often mistakenly called 'full nodes') are irrelevant against the non-sybillable mining power.
Hahaha no. Everyone can now clearly see what "would have been" if the users did not fight back against the miners last year. ABC already had a 4:1 advantage in so-called 'node' count. If so-called 'node' count actually mattered, they would not be willing to lose $450,000 per day on redirecting mining power from BTC to Bitcoin Cash ABC. |
|
|
|
Ironically, jbreher and peterr are now in opposing camps of the "hashwar".
As I have said several times, I have a soft preference for SV. But I can live with ABC as well. But whatevs. I have a sneaking suspicion the hash war has barely had its first skirmish. We shall see. |
|
|
|
It is Wright who said he wouldn't accept other chain to survive and will commit every resource to kill it even for months/years. He has already lost the hashwar, now let's see if he go on guerrilla war and commit his threats of attacking the ABC chain... Something which could have clear legal implications btw. Is there any estimated time for the hashwar to end, or could it continue for months or for as long as both camps want to keep up with the war ? I supposed it was meant to be like a race, where maybe the first mine a certain amounts of blocks wins ? Am I wrong ? War is war. It is not over until both sides stop warring. |
|
|
|
Also, I think it hilarious that the powers that be for BCH think a hash war is necessary, when Bitcoin already implemented more civil consensus mechanisms years ago.
More civil? By controlling the dialogue in all relevant channels such that alternatives could not be discussed? No thanks. Incidentally, hash war is the exact mechanism described in the white paper. I mean, I realize that Core-eans don't like Bitcoin, and think it is irreparably flawed, but at least recognize this for what it is. Governance via Nakamoto Consensus. Well, at least with the BTC way, real commerce could proceed without interruption. Are you sure Satoshi felt that if mining parties disagree, they should just go out an have a hash war and delay any safe and meaningful commerce for days or weeks? No, I am not sure that is what Satoshi would have wanted. But the facts are that that is the system he developed and released to the world. Along with the admonition that "They vote with their CPU proof-of-worker, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." |
|
|
|
It is Wright who said he wouldn't accept other chain to survive and will commit every resource to kill it even for months/years. He has already lost the hashwar
From publicly available information, this is how it appears. But what makes you think that all relevant info is public? I work with what I have. Maybe SV have won the hashwar and killed ABC... in secret? No, really, I would love to see this escalating soon because it is a great way to put to test some theories and principles of Bitcoin and verify the outcome. Do you still think Wright/Ayre camp may have some ace up his sleeve? To me it is all just a bunch of insane bluffing. Well, they may be bluffing. Another possibility is that there is something to this Squire/Samsung story, and that SV forces are secretly mining an empty ABC chain, waiting for time of maximum disruption to release it and cause all clients to abandon the current ABC chain. Who knows? It would be entertaining, though. And instructive. |
|
|
|
if, if, if
What you all grumpy about bbear? 'bbear'? That's a new one. ANYWAY..., I'm not grumpy. I'm just pointing out that your hypothetical is dependent on several 'ifs'. None of which are anywhere near certain to come to pass. |
|
|
|
It is Wright who said he wouldn't accept other chain to survive and will commit every resource to kill it even for months/years. He has already lost the hashwar
From publicly available information, this is how it appears. But what makes you think that all relevant info is public? |
|
|
|
You act as though the direction of BTC is set in stone and incapable of making adjustments if it becomes obvious that the current direction is going the wrong way.
It was obvious that BTC was going the wrong way last August. We fixed the problem in the manner available. Also, I think it hilarious that the powers that be for BCH think a hash war is necessary, when Bitcoin already implemented more civil consensus mechanisms years ago.
More civil? By controlling the dialogue in all relevant channels such that alternatives could not be discussed? No thanks. Incidentally, hash war is the exact mechanism described in the white paper. I mean, I realize that Core-eans don't like Bitcoin, and think it is irreparably flawed, but at least recognize this for what it is. Governance via Nakamoto Consensus. |
|
|
|
Yeah... about that... does not seem genuine. |
|
|
|
No sv block explorer ....no sv.
That's not the way it works. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
