Doesn't appear to be the case. True, BTC is down. But BCH is down more ATM. BTC/SV, however, is up considerably.

Hmm. I was just at YVR on Monday. Guess I shoulda looked around more.

Dang. Looks like your premonition was valid. Did you find a way to profit from it?

Poorly-written article, true. Most would see the intent as "in case their version of Bitcoin Cash (BCHABC) suffers an attack from miners backing Bitcoin SV (BCHSV), the BCH version promoted by Craig Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre."

Good catch - I read right over it myself.

Looks like ABC's benevolent dictator for life is preparing to take his ball and go home:

Writing on Twitter, Bitcoin ABC lead developer and self-described Bitcoin Cash “benevolent dictator” Amaury Séchet said that activating an emergency fork to alter the Bitcoin Cash hashing algorithm would be a “nuclear option” but that developers should keep it on the table in case their version of Bitcoin Cash (BCHSV) suffers an attack from miners backing Bitcoin SV (BCHSV), the BCH version promoted by Craig Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre.

https://www.ccn.com/nuclear-option-abc-dev-wont-rule-out-changing-bitcoin-cash-pow-algorithm/

Sad really. While I have a soft preference for SV, I'd prefer it win through simple market forces. Not through ABC's abandonment of the principles and heritage of satoshi's bitcoin.

False premise. SV is a legitimate contender for BCH identity. ABC does not get a free pass.

Or do you not understand permissionless markets?

Explain how hash power can be 'manipulated'?

Haha. Why don't you point me to what exactly you think I misunderstand then. Or are you incapable of more than muttering platitudes?


WTF is this 'savior' shit?


'Meltdown'? Doesn't look like a meltdown to me. Looks like a warning. Given the hash power SV has been bringing on line, it seems it may have been the most useful info Roger could have gotten from CSW. Sure, it's phrased harshly. Whatevs. What do you want - useful information, or a scrumptious candy coating?


Relevance?


Just the next stage of growth. He who laughs last, and all that shit.

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?

Still churning away at The Forum That Must Not Be Named^[tm].

So much for immutability? Nay; so much for ETH's entire raison d'etre - inviolable code as law.

Haha.

crown
/kroun/Submit
verb
past tense: crowned; past participle: crowned
1.
ceremonially place a crown on the head of (someone) in order to invest them as a monarch.
"he went to Rome to be crowned"
synonyms:   enthrone, install; More
declare or acknowledge (someone) as the best, especially at a sport.
"he was crowned world champion last September"
(in checkers) promote (a piece) to king by placing another on top of it.
rest on or form the top of.
"the distant knoll was crowned with trees"
synonyms:   top, cap, tip, head, surmount
"a steeple crowned by a gilded cross"
fit a crown to (a tooth).
INFORMAL
hit on the head.
"she contained the urge to crown him"

::*harrumph!*::

Umm... you're welcome?

I'm not sure this thread is the right audience for that. But let the chips fall where they may.

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?

Oh stop it. We've hat enough.

...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.