Unfortunate that I had to make use of the ignore function for certain individuals shitting up this thread.
This thread is for discussing Bitcoin markets. Not BCash.
KINDLY
FUCK
OFF
ALREADY
BCASH
TARDS.
Sorry 'bout that, Bob. But when others make false assertions about Bitcoin Cash, I will step in to correct them. And follow that conversation wherever it leads. I am not the one that initiated the active branches in which I am participating on the topic of BCH. |
|
|
|
I will simplify my argument down to a single point.
Bcash has a single point of failure which is Jihan Wu,
Well, if that is what your argument boils down to, you have already lost. writing using the royal “we” below.
For which your evidence is....? |
|
|
|
You are the one who asserted cartelization. Who exactly does this posited cartel consist of?
And you replied BTC is as cartelized as BCH (which I don't think is a correct statement). Cartel consisting of plainly visible J.Wu and R.Ver, plus some likely big shots of the PBOC/Chinese Party/Government who (will) use then (especially Wu) as a sock puppet as soon as the need arises. This is a consistent Core talking point. Yet nobody ever bothers to explain how such a cartel was created, is structured, and is managed. Well, some make easily debunked assertions. Will you be the first to elucidate? Or will you drop this inane assertion? You must admit, however, than the childhood trauma gag ("bitten by a small block") was quite funny
Yes, I chortled. |
|
|
|
amazing tits and ass.
finally some quality TA in this thread zing! |
|
|
|
Interesting, but full of fallacies, untruths, and lies. I don't much get it. Cuneta is usually on point. But this article shows he is ignorant on Bitcoin Cash, and is at a minimum accepting lies perpetrated by others as fact. |
|
|
|
punched bcash's stupid face.
What are you - fourteen years old? |
|
|
|
This myth that non-mining nodes don't matter is the most dangerous the big blockers are forced to peddle, simply because it drops out of the big block argument as a necessity.
Not at all. If we make ability to run a node by every pissant participant on their lowest common denominator hardware a requirement, Bitcoin Segwit disqualifies itself as well. |
|
|
|
- BCH doesn't fix transaction malleabilty,
Transaction malleability is not a problem in practice. Any of its effects are easily mitigated. FWIW, though, the majority opinion within the Bitcoin Cash community is that we will implement a malleability fix. When higher priority issues are in the rearview. ruling out L2 solutions
No. While it is true that eliminating malleability simplifies known L2 solutions, in no way prevents them. Preventing them to the point of making them too hard to implement reliably - at least, as of now. If the emergency situation grants hurrying to hardfork a blocksize change, why not fix transaction malleability first? Because transaction malleability -- as you seem to tacitly acknowledge -- causes no problems in practice. OTOH, the block size limitation has rendered Bitcoin Segwit unusable for most common commercial activities. Why on earth would we solve a non-problem before solving an acute and crippling problem? which are the scaling solution in the medium (possibly long) term.
Perhaps. Though I point out that any transaction on any known L2 is by definition not a Bitcoin transaction. Accordingly, less interesting. Any L2 solution proven in practice -- including being free of negative side effects -- is likely to be picked up by the Bitcoin Cash chain. Less interesting, but isn't the point about functionality rather than academic interest? As long is it is Bitcoin functionality, yes. Ergo... - BCH is controlled by a cartel.
No more so than Bitcoin Segwit. Less so in fact. Six independent leading implementations of non-mining, fully validating wallets (often mis referred to as 'nodes') as opposed to Bitcoin Segwit's Core implementation's market dominance. Offhand innuendo, pff. The attitude behind this reply is one of the reasons I got tired of replying. I am referring to the number of active developers (not just the ones with commit rights!). The fact that one client is more popular on the main bitcoin fork doesn't mean it's controlled by a cartel. Open source development and free client choice produced this result. are the one who asserted cartelization. Who exactly does this posited cartel consist of? Their coders are clueless.
Again, simply false. To me, the mess they made with the fork and the EDA is the mark of incompetence. The mess they made with the EDA? The EDA served its declared purpose perfectly. It ensured the validity of the BCH chain in its infancy. If it weren't for some of the Core developers, I imagine they would still be there trying to figure out "why the hell doesn't it work, hurr durr?"
What value did the core developers add here? The cartel is likely under the heavy hand of PBOC.
Again, no more so than Bitcoin Segwit. The miner population is identical between the two chains. Another prime example of offhand innuendo in my probably biased opinion - and, most importantly, factually incorrect for all I know. Nearly all miners for BCH are in China. Again, the set of miners for BCH is identical to the set of miners for BTC. Which renders irrelevant the following bit: Jihan is a Chinese citizen who no doubt is scared shitless of the Gubment and its appendices (like PBOC). Jihan can shut off the whole merry-go-round at the touch of a button - by just restraining his support (like "miner hardware shall only be paid in BCH from now on") or by whispering a few nice words to select clients (big miners). All it takes is the Party to make him an offer he can't refuse. to gain control.
What exactly do you mean by this? I mean taking control of Bitcoin by replacing it with Bcash. Miners have exactly as much control in Bitcoin Cash as they do in Bitcoin Segwit. By doing so, developers would be under Jihan's, Ver's (and PBOC's) thumb.
Exactly to the extent that they are in Bitcoin Segwit. Censorship can happen. Moderate (or unreasonable!) inflation can be programmed as a "fair reward" for miners (most likely friends of the Party), who would become something like a miniature Central Bank, with similar privileges and arbitrary power.
I would suggest you are ignoring fundamental dynamics of nakamoto consensus. The miners are held in check by the threat of the users abandoning the chain they create. Anything can be perpetrated easily, if full nodes become so few as to be irrelevant.
The only power so-called 'full nodes' (I presume you mean non-mining, fully-validating wallets) have is as a proxy for the economic power of their owners. - Big blocks will stifle adoption.
If you believe that the measure of adoption is number of non-mining, fully-validating wallets, then you may have a point. However, it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that non-mining, fully-validating wallets have fuck-all to do with network health. It hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction, though. Some things show their value only when they are sorely missed. Full nodes are one of these things IMO. I do understand that is the prevalent dogma. Yes, that's the old "Raspberry pi in rural Afghanistan" argument. Even I, not in rural Afghanistan, would stop my own homespun node (not a pi though) if pressed by bandwidth and storage limits.
Testing has demonstrated that an average 'home computer' on an average 'domestic broadband' connection can handle up to 100 tx/s with no architectural changes to the satoshi client, and 500 tx/s merely by fixing that client's broken threading implementation. My bandwidth can't. Really? You can't spare 3Mb/s? Yeah. We've already discussed these very points, have we not? Why you continue to ignore my replies is beyond my ken.
Not ignoring, but I feel stuck in a loop and it's bad for my health!  Well, that I can understand. I realize that my viewpoints are not share by the majority here on BCT.org. And I am fine with us having a disagreement on the desired direction forward. What I am not OK with is mischaracterization. One example thereof: "The "more reason" I was (and am) asking of you is an effective, documented rebuttal of my points or some subjective reason that goes beyond "I like big big big! Blocks big, me happy!"" Obviously, my replies to you have been more than "I like big big big"..., and for you to characterize it as such is not only uncharitable, it is either lazy or dishonest. Frankly, while I expect that from some here, I did not expect it from you. |
|
|
|
1. Jihan Wu personally selected the EDA fix from five proposals. He said so himself. I can’t currently find the link. Perhaps someone else can.
First time that I have seen anyone make such a concrete claim. So certainly, you're willing to dredge up an actual quote? 2. Bitcoin ABC nodes run almost exclusively on cloud servers. Over 50% are on Alibaba servers alone. The 2X email list is full of exhortations for members to spin up additional Sybil nodes. https://goo.gl/images/NT1gto'Almost exclusively'? News to me. Mine runs on a machine that is right at my ankles at the moment. Is that illegible chart supposed to support your over 50% claim? What relevance do you assert the 2x email list has to do with Bitcoin Cash? 3. The fact that the code base
A) there is no ' the code base'. There are at least five independent wallet implementations that interoperate on the Bitcoin Cash chain. is controlled by Jihan Wu,
B) lack of supporting evidence duly noted. Of which codebase do you speak? and the complete lack of independent nodes
C) that's just crazy talk. Do you get your talking points directly from Dragon's Den? means that Jihan Wu can easily be leaned on by the Chinese State to do anything they want with Bcash.
D) While this may be true, it is no less true for Bitcoin Segwit. Roger Ver has repeatedly said that “non-mining nodes only get in the way”.
E) Something tells me that you have provided an incomplete quote (further, it looks like actually a non-quote, though could easily be something neary identical to something he may have said). As far as the health of the blockchain, non-mining fully-validating nodes provide no benefit to the network, this is true. 4. You have not addressed the issue that if Bitcoin increased its block size, the blocks would almost immediately be full again with no net reduction in congestion.
Bald assertion unsupported by evidence. Why were blocks not full from the genesis block onward? We only hit persistently full about a year ago. For your 'instantly full' theory to be consistent, it must have some explanation for this fact. |
|
|
|
To add to the above, the complete pointlessness of increasing block size when those larger blocks will immediately be filled again and congestion will be just as bad as before.
Bald assertion unsupported by evidence. Yet we continue to build roads. How can such a thing be explained, given the infallibility of the Lewis-Mogridge position? |
|
|
|
I have always presumed jbreher is probably at least in the 4 digits BTC, maybe even in the (low) 5's.... Which is why I have always tried to understand why he decided to go the "wrong way" (Jihan/Ver) with so much at stake  I haven't worked out estimates of jbreher's (or anyone else's) stash, but the man strikes me as a rational thinker with much at stake since a long time. So I also tried to understand the reasons for his choice, and I asked him explicitly. Unfortunately, his explanations with regard to bigblockery/Verism etc. always came short. Disappointing underperformance for a good poster, accurate checker of facts, numerical literate such as he is. What more reason do you need other than the fact that the current blocksize limitation is destroying the user experience thereby constraining adoption? You seem to like BCH a lot, which IMO is not a rational strategy. This dissonance is unresolved as yet. A few reasons: - BCH doesn't fix transaction malleabilty, Transaction malleability is not a problem in practice. Any of its effects are easily mitigated. FWIW, though, the majority opinion within the Bitcoin Cash community is that we will implement a malleability fix. When higher priority issues are in the rearview. ruling out L2 solutions
No. While it is true that eliminating malleability simplifies known L2 solutions, in no way prevents them. which are the scaling solution in the medium (possibly long) term.
Perhaps. Though I point out that any transaction on any known L2 is by definition not a Bitcoin transaction. Accordingly, less interesting. Any L2 solution proven in practice -- including being free of negative side effects -- is likely to be picked up by the Bitcoin Cash chain. - BCH is controlled by a cartel.
No more so than Bitcoin Segwit. Less so in fact. Six independent leading implementations of non-mining, fully validating wallets (often mis referred to as 'nodes') as opposed to Bitcoin Segwit's Core implementation's market dominance. Their coders are clueless.
Again, simply false. The cartel is likely under the heavy hand of PBOC.
Again, no more so than Bitcoin Segwit. The miner population is identical between the two chains. They use guerrilla tactics (esp. transaction spam)
Well, here you have a point. We really don't know who 'they' is, but I must admit that it is likely that some bigblockers are creating multitudinous low-value transactions on the Bitcoin Segwit chain. Other explanations are also rational, though perhaps unlikely. to gain control.
What exactly do you mean by this? - Big blocks will stifle adoption.
If you believe that the measure of adoption is number of non-mining, fully-validating wallets, then you may have a point. However, it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that non-mining, fully-validating wallets have fuck-all to do with network health. Further, I believe it likely that massive adoption will lead to huge numbers of nodes - naturally. Every common consumer has little reason to run such a non-mining, fully-validating wallet. You know who does? Merchants who have a need to verify that their purchasers are actually broadcasting valid transactions for the goods and services they are purchasing. More usable chain -> more users -> more incentive to take Bitcoin in commerce -> more merchants -> more need to verify transactions -> more validating wallets. You know what really stifles adoption? A congested, expensive, time-wasting, unreliable Bitcoin Segwit. Yes, that's the old "Raspberry pi in rural Afghanistan" argument. Even I, not in rural Afghanistan, would stop my own homespun node (not a pi though) if pressed by bandwidth and storage limits.
Testing has demonstrated that a typical 'home computer' on a typical 'domestic broadband' connection can handle up to 100 tx/s with no architectural changes to the satoshi client, and 500 tx/s merely by fixing that client's broken threading implementation. "Be your own bank" implies the ability to run your own full verifying node.
Well, no. It most certainly does not. At least I can't see any prerequisite there. How do you figure? - More adoption will come when we have a scalable system. Big blocks aren't scalable.
Big blocks -- by definition -- are scalable. You know all these things already. You are too intelligent not to see the logical implications. So, my fuzzy inference is: you have other reasons. Not saying you are necessarily a paid shill, although it can't be ruled out. The "more reason" I was (and am) asking of you is an effective, documented rebuttal of my points or some subjective reason that goes beyond "I like big big big! Blocks big, me happy!" Something like "I was bitten by a small block when I was a child, try to understand my shock" would be a little better, but as you understand, still not quite satisfactory.
Yeah. We've already discussed these very points, have we not? Why you continue to ignore my replies is beyond my ken. |
|
|
|
It it is just the "going full bigblocktard" stuff which makes me question and try to understand his rationale on that decision. I think maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn there... If I wanted to live in a echo chamber I would just talk to myself and ignore everyone else that (even slightly) disagrees with my opinions.
Bravo. You're already head and shoulders above the typical WO denizen, for just allowing that perhaps there is an alternate valid viewpoint. Far too many here are merely religious zealots. I can't neither consider his "XMAS giving" as irrational. For sure there is some obvious inconsistency in the fiat value of that one BTC from past years
Who cares about fiat value? If you think of it as a ratio to my wealth it makes perfect sense. I have more than I'll be able to spend already. It's my progeny - they'll be getting the bulk of it eventually. I'm training them to inherent dynastic wealth (not that I have any experience in such, though I seem to be doing okay so far). |
|
|
|
if you consider his methodology in trading, that would certainly not be consistent with folks having either 5 digits or even 4 digits of BTC.
What is your rationale for claiming that my trading strategy is inconsistent with such a postulated stash size? Do you think such strategies work only for minnows? |
|
|
|
Bcash is controlled by a single person
false and has almost zero independent nodes.
false It is wholly centralized and can be taken out by the Chinese government at any moment.
No more so than Bitcoin Segwit. |
|
|
|
I have always presumed jbreher is probably at least in the 4 digits BTC, maybe even in the (low) 5's.... Which is why I have always tried to understand why he decided to go the "wrong way" (Jihan/Ver) with so much at stake I haven't worked out estimates of jbreher's (or anyone else's) stash, but the man strikes me as a rational thinker with much at stake since a long time. So I also tried to understand the reasons for his choice, and I asked him explicitly. Unfortunately, his explanations with regard to bigblockery/Verism etc. always came short. Disappointing underperformance for a good poster, accurate checker of facts, numerical literate such as he is. What more reason do you need other than the fact that the current blocksize limitation is destroying the user experience thereby constraining adoption? |
|
|
|
Ok, as of right now, the price to send a transaction in the next block is about 140 satoshis per byte
Where are you getting your data? It seems off. Way off. According to estimatefees.com, to get 2 block confirmation, you'll need to spend 953 sat/B. $45.98 USD for a current average tx of 374 bytes. According to earn.com, to get 1-4 block confirmation, you'll need to spend 440+ sat/B. https://bitcoinexchangerate.org/fees: Next block $37.35 sat268798 BTC0.00268799 https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m: 948 sat/B FACT CHECK INDEED. Whether you like it or not the mem pool was until the last few blocks clearing down to 140 sats. We seem to have a slight bump in Xmas traffic in the last few minutes. Feel free to quote fee estimators that are horribly wrong and suit your agenda. https://preview.ibb.co/hxzeH6/CBC6_BCDD_6_D20_41_AE_A4_CC_D6_B78_A59923_A.jpgI can't really speak to which of these estimators are right or wrong. But when all the leading sources for this figure return such divergent results, you've got evidence of a broken system. It’s a fact that the mem pool was clearing down to 140 sat transactions. How do you know that your source of data is accurate? For all I know, the fee estimators you quoted are run by Bcash shills.
I guess it's possible. Seems rather unlikely. I just listed the first ones returned by a google search. Got any evidence to go with your wild-ass conjecture? No one should be surprised if Bcash shills spread false data.
... reaching... |
|
|
|
Ok, as of right now, the price to send a transaction in the next block is about 140 satoshis per byte
Where are you getting your data? It seems off. Way off. According to estimatefees.com, to get 2 block confirmation, you'll need to spend 953 sat/B. $45.98 USD for a current average tx of 374 bytes. According to earn.com, to get 1-4 block confirmation, you'll need to spend 440+ sat/B. https://bitcoinexchangerate.org/fees: Next block $37.35 sat268798 BTC0.00268799 https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m: 948 sat/B FACT CHECK INDEED. Whether you like it or not the mem pool was until the last few blocks clearing down to 140 sats. We seem to have a slight bump in Xmas traffic in the last few minutes. Feel free to quote fee estimators that are horribly wrong and suit your agenda. https://preview.ibb.co/hxzeH6/CBC6_BCDD_6_D20_41_AE_A4_CC_D6_B78_A59923_A.jpgI can't really speak to which of these estimators are right or wrong. But when all the leading sources for this figure return such divergent results, you've got evidence of a broken system. |
|
|
|
So anyone buying their other half or family members some BTC for Christmas?
I've given each of the progeny (3 kids, 2 inlaws, 2 grandkids) 1 BTC each of the last three xmases. I see no reason to divert. This year, they'll be wrapped in Ledger Nano Ss. I understand that each of us have our proclivities for generousity, or not, but that sounds financially ridiculous for normal people. Yeah - that's the 2nd time in recent memory you're telling me I'm living my life in an improper manner. I am presuming that you and I have similar quantities of bitcoin,
I am presuming you are off by a significant multiple. My position was largely set by early 2011. Ponderate upon that fact. |
|
|
|
Ok, as of right now, the price to send a transaction in the next block is about 140 satoshis per byte
Where are you getting your data? It seems off. Way off. According to estimatefees.com, to get 2 block confirmation, you'll need to spend 953 sat/B. $45.98 USD for a current average tx of 374 bytes. According to earn.com, to get 1-4 block confirmation, you'll need to spend 440+ sat/B. https://bitcoinexchangerate.org/fees: Next block $37.35 sat268798 BTC0.00268799 https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m: 948 sat/B FACT CHECK INDEED. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
