https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1172#post-62232
nChain informed BU -- after I tweeted about CSW's errors with respect to 0-conf security -- that they would be winding down their funding of the Gigablock Testnet over the next three months. Shortly after I tweeted proof of Craig Wright's plagiarism, nChain informed us that they would be terminating the Gigablock agreement effective immediately. BU agreed to the termination and forgave the small (~$10k) balance owed to BU by nChain. In total, nChain contributed $37,666.78 in cryptocurrency to the Gigablock Testnet. They made no in-kind contributions (engineering, technical writing, code review, or otherwise).
That they terminated the agreement did not come as a surprise. Since the agreement began last summer, each tweet, reddit comment, or forum post I made that pointed out an error in CSW's work, or critiqued him in some other way, was met with a response in private from nChain. By this winter they had made it explicitly clear that I was not to question CSW's ideas, point out errors in his work, or publicly critique him in any way, or they would pull the funding for the Gigablock project.
I had definitely been warned.
I promised myself to remain silent on CSW until after Satoshi's Vision Tokyo, so as not to put the success of the conference at risk. I starting calling Wright out shortly afterwards.
It is due to my actions that nChain terminated the Gigablock project.
I apologize to all those at BU who are dissappointed by this news or with me. But I hope you can see things from my perspective: being unable to speak your mind and being forbidden from pointing out blatant fraud in the ecosystem because it puts your project's funding at risk is a terrible feeling.
Incidentally, since the CSW fraud scandal has blown up in recent weeks, other members of the BCH community have reached out to me in private to express their disillusionment with CSW. A very serious problem however is that nChain is funding many of the projects these people are working on. The people working on them are conflicted like I was: do they speak their minds? Or do they bite their tongue, look the other way, and keep working on what they believe will help grow BCH. It's a difficult decision to make.
|
|
|
|
In News Actually Relevant to this Bitcoin Cash topic. https://themerkle.com/bitcoin-cash-becomes-the-new-shirt-sponsor-of-ayr-united-fc/Ayr United FC will promote Bitcoin Cash as its official shirt sponsor.
More specifically, the team’s kits will feature a “Bitcoin BCH” logo, which will be visible starting next season.
The new kits will be unveiled this week, and fans of the club can begin pre-ordering them accordingly. Considering that Ayr United plays in the Ladbrokes League 1, and has its matches broadcast on BT Sport and Sky Sports,
a lot of people will be introduced to Bitcoin Cash in the future.  Paid by Calvin Ayre same group same scammers Let everyone know when something happens that Calvin Arye, Roger Ver or Craig Wright didn't have to pay to happen |
|
|
|
You go on about the likes of r/Bitcoin for deleting any posts that are not related and yet you come here trying to censor anyone that discusses something that you don't like or believe in
There is a difference between banning users and simply pointing out the unwelcome aspect of said user's posts. English, bitch. I can guarantee if you had the power to ban me you would have and I could probably guarantee you have tried to report me hoping I get banned You can guarantee? No, you cannot. I may have reported one or more of your posts that had nothing to do with Bitcoin Cash. Again, there is a difference between banning users, and pointing out the unwelcome aspect of said user's posts.  And how did that work out for you ? |
|
|
|
You go on about the likes of r/Bitcoin for deleting any posts that are not related and yet you come here trying to censor anyone that discusses something that you don't like or believe in
There is a difference between banning users and simply pointing out the unwelcome aspect of said user's posts. English, bitch. I can guarantee if you had the power to ban me you would have and I could probably guarantee you have tried to report me hoping I get banned |
|
|
|
@Tek , quit being an idiot , you've lost , no one care about your s-word bullshit. This coin supporters does not use it and does not care for it. Go find a forum, where someone cares about the crap you are putting out. This forum ain't it. You are like a bad house guest that has to be throw out for overstaying your welcome.  BCH is supposed to be about free speech You go on about the likes of r/Bitcoin for deleting any posts that are not related and yet you come here trying to censor anyone that discusses something that you don't like or believe in Everyone is able to decide for themselves and new users should know what's going on so they can do their own research. Maybe if BCH had something worthwhile to talk about then people could talk about that too |
|
|
|
Segwit is not just a malleability fix it also allows for further optimization through signature aggregation etc via a soft fork
Signature aggregation saves quite a bit if space and allows for many more transactions to be included in a block therefore further optimizing the available space and keeping node running costs and system resources down
I rest my case you could not give 1 valid reason I asked about segwit and you go off on some bullshit rant about LN
LN is not setwit LN is a payment network and segwit is a transaction malleability fix nothing more.
It moves the signature data to a different part of the block out of the transaction area that's all it does nothing more
Thankyou for confirming you know nothing
wtf do you smoke m8? seriously...are you ok? You cant seem to make your mind up can you... yesterday it was nothing more, today its not just...whats it going to be tomorrow lol its over m8 SEGWIT IS SHIT.....oh and turn it sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass  Thankyou for confirming you know nothing about the rock   Segwit is just a malleability fix BUT it allows for further features in the future to be soft forked due to the signature being moved Signature aggregation etc is not dependant on segwit it just allows it to be done without a hard fork |
|
|
|
tek tek....tek...tell me ...did you?......did you ?...... ok we try again....take that segwet millibilly fix...turn it sideways and ...... Segwit is not just a malleability fix it also allows for further optimization through signature aggregation etc via a soft fork Signature aggregation saves quite a bit if space and allows for many more transactions to be included in a block therefore further optimizing the available space and keeping node running costs and system resources down |
|
|
|
Like I said early beta client just because eclair still has some issues other don't Eclair is going for the pretty GUI first while LND & c-lightning is concerntating on cli tools first. While CLI is not user friendly it is far more versatile and there are GUIs from the creators of LND in the works and also ZAP wallet from Jack mallers Just because eclair has some issues it does not mean the LN network is broken |
|
|
|
Probably after since the keys were lost shortly after it was released and it was promptly removed from the play store because a bug was discovered that could cause pending payments I don't know when this demo happened but I'm presuming it was recently |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BTCNewsUpdates/status/984270024968998912Long time Bitcoin Core advocate "Cobra" confirms: ▪️Lightning is a threat to BTC's value ▪️Lightning is better used with other coins 0 use case left, no more reason to hold or buy BTCs. 📉🔥 Cobra-Bitcoin A lot of people miss that. From the Bitcoin maximalist point of view, LN is actually a bit of a threat to Bitcoin's value long term. Rather than exclusively being a scaling solution for Bitcoin, it's actually a scaling solution for any coin with a malleability fix. When stores start shifting from accepting BTC payments to LN, any altcoin with a malleability fix gains new adoption as a result. So why use Bitcoin in the first place if you can just use some shitcoin, open a channel into Lightning (at much cheaper cost), and spend at any LN-accepting merchant? Bitcoin maximalism fits better with on-chain scaling philosophy in some ways in that respect, or scaling through sidechains. So, if you want to use ln, you can with other coins , no need to hold og btc...tek thoughts? also did you see ln in action? ooooooo https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8bmyp6/roger_gets_a_demo_of_lightning_network/ You posted that earlier and yes I saw That vid of Roger and LN that's using eclair it's one of the early betas and has some issues I'm well aware of those I've had many failures with eclair that is not a issue with LN though just buggy early beta software that will be fixed I've never had such issues with LND you just need to use the command line Eclair also has other issues it currently cannot receive LN payments either only make them and does not advertise itself to the network or route payments for others LND is the most reliable client so far yes there is still a lot of work to do Bitcoin is the currency like USD The block chain is where you store your money like your bank account LN is a payment network like visa or MasterCard etc When you go to shops etc you don't go and make a bank transfer to pay for something you use a payment processor and can only spend money that is on your bank account (your channel balance) |
|
|
|
One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system
with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.
Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix? So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal. To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.If not it needs to be debunked.
Despite a direct challenge, tek has provided zero rationale for tek's claim that this proposal will change Bitcoin's security model. Zero. Tek merely dodges the question. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg34496915#msg34496915It is possible there is a proposal for BCH that separates sig from tx and changes the security model. Possible. until tek coughs up the text of the relevant proposal, there is no knowing. Salacious claims require support of evidence. The ball is in tek's court. Put up or shut up. If tek can establish such a proposal actually exists, it is then impingent upon tek to show that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting adopted. As if. Unless tek steps forward with some evidence, you can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited. If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.
I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system. The proposed fixes are listed here https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.mdYes they are proposals nothing more I'm not saying that any will be adopted just that their is a chance As for Bitcoin Cash users won't accept being forced into a new system the whole premise of Bitcoin cash is users nodes don't matter only mining nodes matter so you will get forced if the exchanges upgrade and the miners upgrade the users are forced to either upgrade because you use SPV wallets or sell taking huge losses The only reason BTC users can have a say is the users run the majority of the nodes therefore the miners etc won't switch as it's not in their interest to mine something the vast majority of users define worthless |
|
|
|
Lightning network requires just a malleability fix it does not need to be segwit it just happens that segwit is the best fix available.
Yes it will work without segwit or a malleability fix but the smart contract that holds the funds securely on chain is identified by it's transaction id it will work just fine without segwit or a malleability fix the only time a issue would arise is if the opening transaction gets affected by this bug and would result is total loss of funds nothing more and this would be a deal breaker.
One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system while segwit just moves it to a separate merkle tree if the user chooses to use segwit and the user still has the option to use it or carry on using legacy addresses with the signature still in the transaction area.
With segwit you have the option to use the same security model that Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years but with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years.
Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix? If not it needs to be debunked. If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system. Decentralization implies the freedom to keep using legacy addresses in the long term. Massive on-chain scaling is precisely allowing for that, at a very low cost. If a malleability fix is envisioned at a later time to add more options, it will respect the freedom of choice for users. Can't find all the information the devs do a lot of discussing in private https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.mdThis is some of the proposed fixes it's to be done at some point in the future via the scheduled hard forks and affects everyone there is no opt in like segwit where you decide yourself if you want to carry on with legacy or not BCH wants the malfix for everyone this means the security model has to change permanently One of the criticisms of segwit is that it does not fix it for everyone (because it's optional) |
|
|
|
^^^Diversionary tactic #23. When in an argument, you find yourself bereft of any valid counterpoint, introduce a distraction. What argument I provided some facts you responded with some nonsense drivel in a counter attempt |
|
|
|
One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit
Not exact but in a similar manner. In that the signature would be divorced from the transaction data. No more so. with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently
Only difference? Au contraire, my undiscerning friend. The major difference is that none of the BCH malleability fix proposals seek to fundamentally undermine Bitcoin's tried and true security model. The only reason bitmain etc do not like segwit is that it blocks their use of covert asicboost
smh. That's just stupid. I've already stated the reasons. The so-called 'asicboost advantage' is lost in the noise. To the extent that it is actually employed, for which there is no evidence for its widespread use. Ooooh! Scaaaary! a total of.... nine blocks! There is no evidence of covert being used maybe because it's covert and it's hidden Overt is new and currently only supported my the new halong miners and a couple of pools so no there won't be a huge amount of blocks With segwit you have the option to use the same security model that Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years but with one of the proposed BCH fixes this would completely change the security model for a new system and you would not be able to use the one Bitcoin has used for the last 9 years |
|
|
|
You cannot sell segwit here any more - try elsewhere.
This is about Satoshi's Whitpaper impl.
read it
I will ask you the same what is your issue with it Ask me, ask me..pleeeease ...me, me  Ok you answer in your own words since the other two obviously don't have a valid reason and decided to just ignore this question but are happy to respond to everything else Its shit, Its a scam, It was always part of the plan  ok get this, i know you wont believe me..but here goes.. btc was always meant to HF to upgrade....but to many bagholders from years had to be rid off first. While trying to rid of bagholders, some person/group decided... hey since the banks want into crypto , lets sell them this 2nd layer on an old fork... we can take the bankers money and make them wait years for something that wont even work.... oh and while we make them wait, we can get them to tie up their old btc on LN, then when the time is right... we take the LN funds ,destroy old btc,segwet & ln and follow the real bitcoin...BCH Once BCH gets majority hashpower, it becomes the true bitcoin. My words  I rest my case you could not give 1 valid reason I asked about segwit and you go off on some bullshit rant about LN LN is not setwit LN is a payment network and segwit is a transaction malleability fix nothing more. It moves the signature data to a different part of the block out of the transaction area that's all it does nothing more Thankyou for confirming you know nothing You asked for my own words,lol right think about this,what has happened with both coins... BCH on every exchange...becoming more popular everyday... BCH has a growing list of merchants... Alot of $investment has been put into BCH in such a short time period...the old skool btc guys are all in BCH..why? btc since segwit has lost so many huge merchants, making it unusable as a currency It has not been a good store of value either... yea i know nothing oh as for why i go on about LN and link segwet to it all the time... Is segregated witness necessary to implement the Lightning Network? Lightning Network (LN) uses payment channels with Hashed TimeLock Contracts. Both of those things are currently usable on Bitcoin mainnet without segregated witness. https://segwit.org/is-segregated-witness-necessary-to-implement-the-lightning-network-6c4545a9f9f1https://www.anythingcrypto.com/guides/segwit-bitcoin-lightning-network-explainedWhat is the Lightning Network The Lightning Network is very different to Segwit. It proposes using smart contracts to create payment channels that only have to sync with the blockchain after a fixed amount of time. e.g. multiple payments might be processed off the blockchain, then all of them added in one blockchain transaction. This raises security concerns about users creating fake payments - which is why Segwit also needs be implemented (as it solves this security issue). Often Segwit and the Lightning Network will be discussed in the same threads because of its reliance on Segwit. Tek you know all this...are you part of the game? All we are doing is chatting, while waiting for the inevitable, BCH will become defacto bitcoin...segwet free. Lightning network requires just a malleability fix it does not need to be segwit it just happens that segwit is the best fix available Yes it will work without segwit or a malleability fix but the smart contract that holds the funds securely on chain is identified by it's transaction id it will work just fine without segwit or a malleability fix the only time a issue would arise is if the opening transaction gets affected by this bug and would result is total loss of funds nothing more and this would be a deal breaker One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH moves the signature out of the transaction area the exact same way as segwit with the only difference being that on BCH it's just moved permanently and everyone is forced to the new system while segwit just moves it to a separate merkle tree if the user chooses to use segwit and the user still has the option to use it or carry on using legacy addresses with the signature still in the transaction area The only reason bitmain etc do not like segwit is that it blocks their use of covert asicboost which takes away their advantage and also gives them incentives to not include some transactions which also explains why bitmain mine so many blocks with little to no transactions in them compared to other pools now BTC is able to use overt asicboost that gives a similar advantage to covert bit it also works with segwit and removes the incentive to produce empty blocks and is public knowledge as to who is using it there is a block explorer here with blocks found using overt asicboost https://asicboost.dance |
|
|
|
I rest my case you could not give 1 valid reason I asked about segwit and you go off on some bullshit rant about LN
LN is not setwit LN is a payment network and segwit is a transaction malleability fix nothing more.
It moves the signature data to a different part of the block out of the transaction area that's all it does nothing more
Thankyou for confirming you know nothing
It is impressive you are still trying to talk sense to these fucktards. You can't make them see what's going on while they are paid to spread FUD. On the other hand we shouldn't be letting them FUD neither because crypto community is so new, some people will get deceived by these clowns eventually. I remember when I was neutral to this whole bcash unlimited-Bitcoin debate back then. One of these retards was advising me to not read reddit too much. I read even more and I see who's evil now. Here another merit for your efforts. You are doing god's work. I'm not trying to convince them that is a dead end but leave true information so newcomers can come and see both sides, do their own research and come to their own conclusion Unlike the Bcash crew that is just out to decieve everyone |
|
|
|
You cannot sell segwit here any more - try elsewhere.
This is about Satoshi's Whitpaper impl.
read it
I will ask you the same what is your issue with it Ask me, ask me..pleeeease ...me, me Ok you answer in your own words since the other two obviously don't have a valid reason and decided to just ignore this question but are happy to respond to everything else Its shit, Its a scam, It was always part of the plan ok get this, i know you wont believe me..but here goes.. btc was always meant to HF to upgrade....but to many bagholders from years had to be rid off first. While trying to rid of bagholders, some person/group decided... hey since the banks want into crypto , lets sell them this 2nd layer on an old fork... we can take the bankers money and make them wait years for something that wont even work.... oh and while we make them wait, we can get them to tie up their old btc on LN, then when the time is right... we take the LN funds ,destroy old btc,segwet & ln and follow the real bitcoin...BCH Once BCH gets majority hashpower, it becomes the true bitcoin. My words I rest my case you could not give 1 valid reason I asked about segwit and you go off on some bullshit rant about LN LN is not setwit LN is a payment network and segwit is a transaction malleability fix nothing more. It moves the signature data to a different part of the block out of the transaction area that's all it does nothing more Thankyou for confirming you know nothing |
|
|
|
You cannot sell segwit here any more - try elsewhere.
This is about Satoshi's Whitpaper impl.
read it
I will ask you the same what is your issue with it Ask me, ask me..pleeeease ...me, me Ok you answer in your own words since the other two obviously don't have a valid reason and decided to just ignore this question but are happy to respond to everything else |
|
|
|
You cannot sell segwit here any more - try elsewhere.
This is about Satoshi's Whitpaper impl.
read it
I will ask you the same what is your issue with it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
