I just remember reading through the GitHub commit timeline for BSV, seeing that they had decided to keep in dozens (or hundreds) of changes made by Core and ABC devs since 0.10. Its really only "Satoshi's Vision" if you believe Wright is Satoshi. That's the only way in which the "SV" portion of BSV makes sense as its pretty far from a return to the original protocol.
Well, other than the fact that it get closer each release. Don't remember Satoshi ever espousing data storage in the blockchain. Yet every Bitcoin-derived blockchain is capable of storing data. Isn't the data supposed to be transaction data, "supposed to be". According to ... who, exactly? with perhaps a little bit of room to write a funny memo, like "Chancellor on the brink of a second bailout," or something?
Right. Data. From the very genesis. |
|
|
|
I just remember reading through the GitHub commit timeline for BSV, seeing that they had decided to keep in dozens (or hundreds) of changes made by Core and ABC devs since 0.10. Its really only "Satoshi's Vision" if you believe Wright is Satoshi. That's the only way in which the "SV" portion of BSV makes sense as its pretty far from a return to the original protocol.
Well, other than the fact that it get closer each release. Don't remember Satoshi ever espousing data storage in the blockchain. Yet every Bitcoin-derived blockchain is capable of storing data. |
|
|
|
Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol"
BTC is suboptimal not merely because SegWit is an alteration, but because the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change"
One of the things that makes BSV good is that it is being incrementally returned to the original Bitcoin protocol. Do try to keep up. |
|
|
|
My simple argument was that no one cares about the original design
Yet manifestly, some do. |
|
|
|
You could just, you know, fork the 0.1 protocol. Go ahead and fork the genesis block. Ain’t no one stopping you.
Ain't no one stopping us. Except -- you know -- every last one of us. You're becoming unhinged, HM. Even moreso. Oh. So you don’t want to use the 0.1 protocol. Make up your mind, Bear ! I have made up my mind. What is it that seems to indicate to you that I have not? More irrationality, perhaps? |
|
|
|
Or rather: one person loudly going from 'believing in Craig' (whatever that entails) to 'not believing in Craig'. In the meantime, SVHodlerNotAffected.png In the meantime, BSV is down 4.24% while BTC is up 0.50%. Pathetic FUD is pathetic. Right now, the 24 hour results are SV up 2.79%, while BTC is up a meager 0.2%. So what? Another useless data point, just as valid as yours. I put a fair price for this coin at somewhere between $20 and $40.
Thus spake nutildah, Maker Of Markets.  |
|
|
|
Remember Jstolfi?
What the hell does Stolfi have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. I already said what Stolfi had to do with this. Some members have proclaimed that you are polite, and some members have proclaimed that Stolfi was polite. I would like rational people to take note here of JJG's argument. To wit: Both myself and JStolfi are polite, therefore we are arguing the same things, and can be dismissed upon the same grounds.Bravo, JJG. Better than Goebbels. Yer mum must be proud. Haha. I just _know_ somebody's gonna misquote this. Fuck it. |
|
|
|
I just remember reading through the GitHub commit timeline for BSV, seeing that they had decided to keep in dozens (or hundreds) of changes made by Core and ABC devs since 0.10. Its really only "Satoshi's Vision" if you believe Wright is Satoshi. That's the only way in which the "SV" portion of BSV makes sense as its pretty far from a return to the original protocol.
Well, other than the fact that it get closer each release. |
|
|
|
You could just, you know, fork the 0.1 protocol. Go ahead and fork the genesis block. Ain’t no one stopping you.
Ain't no one stopping us. Except -- you know -- every last one of us. You're becoming unhinged, HM. Even moreso. |
|
|
|
Hey jbreher how would you spin EDA and bcash and BSv's current difficulty adjustment algos? what version did that come in?
Well, there's really no way to spin that. That's a change indeed. Of course, SV is the project where the majority of vocal participants are stating a desire to return to the 0.1 protocol. So if this will come to pass, that will be rolled back. Of course there is no guarantee of future developments. Meantime, that is a legitimate claim to a protocol change. |
|
|
|
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahhaaa. I should let this one go, but this is just too funny. Call me weak, I don't care. I am intimately familiar with the contents of the underlying documents which officially define half of those protocols. I'm quite sure that neither rfc791, nor rfc793 nor rfc2460 nor rfc5321 nor any of their subsequent amplifications or revisions say doodly-squat about smart contracts. But then again, I'm always up for learning something new. Where in each of those standards is the smart contract funcitonality hidden? Hmmmm? You should be proud of yourself in deed. IOW, You managed to fail on all levels. |
|
|
|
If jbreher uses his intelligence to deceive people
Not at all. At least never intentionally. or to to get caught in stupid-ass technical arguments
I guess it takes a self-described technical ignoramus to openly refer to technical arguments as 'stupid-ass'. you have a significantly large amount of misleading and misinformation in your posts You are wrong. There is no such thing as factual information that is misleading or misinforming. I present facts, and leave the editorializing to a minimum. Any mis- is in your misattribution of ulterior motive to my actions, which causes you to invent things in my writings that are not there. I guess the courts must have it wrong when they ask witnesses to tell the whole truth. Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)? No. You misunderstand the term 'the whole truth' as used by the courts. If 'the whole truth' were synonymous with 'all the truth of which you are aware', then any court would bog down at the first question posed to the first witness in the first case they try, never ever never to get to the next case. That’s your problem. You tell the selective, partial truth all the time,
You know what? Everyone tells selected partial truth every time they make any claim of factuality. And that's not my problem, that's your problem. mixed with your opinion and supposition.
I do occasionally editorialize. At which point, I insert the appropriate verbiage to indicate that I have transitioned from fact to opinion. Unless it is so bleedingly obvious that it is clearly superfluous. It is deliberately misleading.
Bullshit. You hide behind technical arguments
Says the whiner who was obliterated in our last technical exchange because you introduced supporting evidence that was completely counter to your position, blissfully ignorant that it actually buttressed mine. Just so I understand your position - how exactly does one hide behind a technical argument? which rely on narrow, outdated definitions.
Technical discussions invariably rely on narrow definitions. As for "outdated", you'd need to give me examples to know of what it is that you are speaking. And then you get angry when you are called out.
I don't get angry, I reply. |
|
|
|
Danhel knows who Satoshi is.
Mmm Hmm. Mmmm Hmmm. And you know this ... how? |
|
|
|
Or rather: one person loudly going from 'believing in Craig' (whatever that entails) to 'not believing in Craig'. In the meantime, SVHodlerNotAffected.png |
|
|
|
JJG, you may be a bit too wordy, but I'm glad that you spare the time to call out the destructive bullshit that jbreher spews in order to manipulate others. I am also thankful for Hairy's contributions as well.
Yeah. Too bad for your camp of witch-burners that JJG never actually addresses any of the points made, and that when Hairy does, it backfires spectacularly due to his/her lack of grasp of the very topics s/he utters. |
|
|
|
If jbreher uses his intelligence to deceive people
Not at all. At least never intentionally. or to to get caught in stupid-ass technical arguments
I guess it takes a self-described technical ignoramus to openly refer to technical arguments as 'stupid-ass'. you have a significantly large amount of misleading and misinformation in your posts You are wrong. There is no such thing as factual information that is misleading or misinforming. I present facts, and leave the editorializing to a minimum. Any mis- is in your misattribution of ulterior motive to my actions, which causes you to invent things in my writings that are not there. Regarding your stupid-ass technical arguments, they frequently are stupid-ass because they either are misleading or they are put too much weight on improbable events, which is another form of misleading.
Again, I present mostly scenarios within the range of possibility. I rarely assign probabilities to such events. OTOH, to outwardly shame the presenter of truthful possibilities is indeed in itself a misleading activity, largely the domain of those trying to prevent the truth from becoming widely known. Since it seems quite unlikely that you are going to get banned,
Dream on, compadre, dream on. Remember Jstolfi?
What the hell does Stolfi have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. Stolfi was rational, but he worked from flawed axioms - to wit: - Bitcoin is merely a currency at best. - Deflationary currencies can never work in any role in economic society. Nay, the axiom that we seem to disagree upon would seem to be my belief that actual utility matters. |
|
|
|
How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand... Funny, eh? So what's the point you are trying to make? My mistake. I couldn't see any evidence of them in the white paper. Thank you for clarifying that it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper. That is not what I said at all. Are you really that blind that you do not see what I am getting at? Even with your introduction of demonstrably flawed sidebars? The initial implementation of Bitcoin - 0.1 supports all the features you list. Without recourse to explicit enabling code. The initial implementation of Bitcoin -- and including up to and through the SegWit Omnibus Changeset Release -- did not support SegWit. Neither explicitly nor as an external implementation. Indeed, the implementation of SegWit was predicated on the most egregious change to the Bitcoin protocol ever enacted. The features you list did not / do not require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. SegWit did / does require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. So when you say "it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper", you're neither right nor wrong. What matters is the protocol itself. SegWit was undeniably a change to that protocol. A rather significant one. Therefore, somewhat 'less Bitcoin-y' -- at least on this axis -- than other implementations which hew to the original. On the other hand, if some element is decidedly counter to the white paper (chain of digital signatures, anyone?), then that indeed does matter. It’s hard to keep track of what you were saying when you keep changing it. Bullshit. I've been consistent. You've been persistent in finding new words to stick in my mouth. |
|
|
|
Thank you. But i noticed the top 2 users don't appreciate it much. I never got any merit from the top 2 users for any of my charts or bitcoin discussion. And i publish and talk about bitcoin every day. I don't know why?
I wouldn't take it personal if I were you. This may come as a shock to a number of millennials, but there exist some number of people that find no value in the gamification of every aspect of life. Here - have a merit. You seem to want it. |
|
|
|
Beecash should cancel tx fees at all if they think txs should be cheap and affordable?
Wrapping a stupid rhetorical talking point inside reductio ad absurdum does not absolve its stupidity. In the asymptotic case, miners will need to be incentivized through tx fees. |
|
|
|
If it was not for Segwit, we would be paying higher fees today, and the network would be slower.
Well, there was another available means of solving these issues. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
