I'm disappointed that almost everyone posting in this thread is making suggestions about what other people should do rather than thinking of ways to contribute themselves.
I plan to open at least one PR a month adding a useful new test to Bitcoin Core, or significantly improving an existing test, with the first PR to be opened by 31 October 2018.
What do the rest of you plan to do?
newbie needs to have a track record before dictating what others could or should do, no? Let's see if you do what you said you were going to do. How many months are you going to report back to show that you have taken actual action and are more than just promises? I'm pretty sure @harding is David Harding. Definitely not a Bitcoin newbie. https://github.com/harding |
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that almost everyone posting in this thread is making suggestions about what other people should do rather than thinking of ways to contribute themselves.
I plan to open at least one PR a month adding a useful new test to Bitcoin Core, or significantly improving an existing test, with the first PR to be opened by 31 October 2018.
What do the rest of you plan to do?
I plan to continue working on a competing implementation to Bitcoin Core. It was because of Bitcoin Unlimited that this bug was caught, when Awemany noticed it while working on the consensus changes for the November fork in BCH. This tells me that multiple implementations and competing development teams is a good thing. |
|
|
|
As I see it: - The consensus layer protocol needs to be formally specified and versioned. Bugs and all. The spec should be updated before consensus code
- consensus layer code should be changed as rarely as possible. if ever.
A formal spec would be nice, I agree. But I think it is interesting that Core's inflation bug wasn't due to nuance in the consensus rules. Having a formal spec wouldn't have helped in this case. The bug literally allowed coins to be created out of thin air. Something that _obviously_ was not supposed to happen. You might call it the most important consensus rule in Bitcoin! As to your second point about the consensus layer not changing much, I think this is tricky in practice too. For example, a hot area of research in blockchain scaling is how to parallelize block validation. This type of work will almost certain involve refactoring consensus critical code. If we want to eventually processes thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of transactions per second, we will need massive parallelization. |
|
|
|
Bigger blocks are a bandaid....
It's necessary. Just a matter of when. Maybe as a soft fork. I suspect BTC won't be able to increase the block size limit directly (i.e., as a HF) without another blockchain split. |
|
|
|
I could be glib and point out the 'cash' in the title. But I don't have to. Back before the tx volume got big enough to be chronically delayed to the 'next' block, zero conf txs were routine.
There is really no arguing this point. They worked. To the point that freeking _payment_processors_ accepted zero conf txs.
Here's a website that tracks 0-conf double-spend attempts on BCH: https://doublespend.cash/It is very rare for the transaction broadcast second to be confirmed in a block, even when it offers a higher fee. And 0-conf can be improved further, for example with double-spend relaying so that merchants can quickly detect fraud attempts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAt6B7b4GeMOr by more finely-grained proof-of-work to discourage miners from facilitating fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFuNkaYcPQ |
|
|
|
Look at the volume. Look at it.
It looks pitiful. But is that your point? Beacuse it's eclipsing everything else in the chart? I dunno. Doesn't look like that much volume:  |
|
|
|
Look at the volume. Look at it.
It looks pitiful. But is that your point? |
|
|
|
I wanna know whats going through the mind of someone selling here. Do they think this is their last chance of selling at 6K?
You don't think we can fall to $3.5k? Not right now, but I think it could rally to 10K+ and then fall to 3.5K My feeling is that this is not a 2014 scenario and we're not heading into a long term bear market. That said, I could see us hitting $3.5k but only briefly. I believe we'll hit new ATH's sometime in 2018. I consider Bitcoin to be the sum of its forks (BCH + BTC + BTG + ...) |
|
|
|
I wanna know whats going through the mind of someone selling here. Do they think this is their last chance of selling at 6K?
You don't think we can fall to $3.5k? |
|
|
|
I take it Peter is now referring to Bcash as the one true Bitcoin. True to form. No. You take BTC as "the one true bitcoin." As for me, I say that I don't know. Maybe BTC will remain dominant; but maybe BCH with its greater block size limit will overtake it. Or maybe a new branch will prevail. It doesn't matter to me because Bitcoin is the sum of its forks and I hold them all. |
|
|
|
fuck off you piece of lying shit ... you've spent best part of 3 years confusing people about what is bitcoin and pumping some dumb shitcoins and now you come here with this tripe ... really, just fuck off you parasite cunt. take jbreher and ver and your other fucked up mates with you. Finally some carnage.
blah blah blah
I think Bitcoin is destined to become a global peer-to-peer electronic cash system that will change the world as we know it in many ways. Do what you need to do, but don't lose hope.
...what is your objection? Not to the person, that's just childish, but to what he says? Marcus is coming to terms with the fact that the Blockstream/Core narrative is collapsing. He's realizing that Bitcoin cannot succeed as only a "store of value" TM or as muh "digital gold" TM on its own -- instead, it needs to be used. He's invested a lot into attacking people like me who have been doing the scalability research to grow bitcoin into a world-wide electronic cash system. He sees his narrative coming unglued and so he lashes out. Marcus: have you noticed that the engineers of Blockstream are leaving? Check out the latest Coindesk articles. Bitcoin will succeed, and it will succeed as a global e-cash system that is as useful to people making $2 per day as it is to people making $2,000 per day. The Blockstream/Core "settlement layer" will end with this crash. |
|
|
|
|
Finally some carnage. This is starting to look like a "real bitcoin crash"TM. But don't worry; this is not the end of Bitcoin. Even if we fall to $3,000, this is not the end. Bitcoin has survived 3 previous crashes of magnitudes 15x, 5x, and 6x; this crash has cut the price by a factor of only 3x -- tame in comparison.
Bitcoin is a virus. The reason we won't fall back to where we came from at $1,000 is because we've infected so many new people -- our base of "hodlers" in now larger than ever. Also remember that bitcoin has just received more global attention than at any other time in history. We now have another opportunity to get some real work done on adoption, usage and on-boarding new people, as we build a pad for the next launch.
I think Bitcoin is destined to become a global peer-to-peer electronic cash system that will change the world as we know it in many ways. Do what you need to do, but don't lose hope.
|
|
|
|
Open source projects are supposed to be volunteer. I guess that one is closed source.  Many developers working on Bitcoin are paid. Nearly all software developed by BU is open-source, by the way. |
|
|
|
Peter, no offense, but where did you get that "Fozzie Bear" accent?   I haven't heard Fozzie Bear before. I normally get Kermit the frog. |
|
|
|
|
@roach:
The three big problems I see with gold are that:
1. It can't be sent over the internet
2. It is difficult to know if you have "real gold"
3. It is difficult to store (I can't keep it in my brain, or password-protect it so that it's useless to a thief) and easy for men with guns to take from me
Gold was the best money the world had ever seen, but standing shoulder-to-shoulder with bitcoin, it looks obvious to me that gold will become a relic of a long-ago era of human development.
|
|
|
|
...but seriously, why would I use BCH over LTC? Because I don't want a coin with an option to use segwit? I'm trying to get the selling point of using BCH over something that already is established.
Since windjc asked me this exact question last week, I'll quote my response to him: "I view money as a ledger. Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value. The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on? Which is the best pen? Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1. At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth). Switching to LTC would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink. Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger." If the whole premise is toward the cash part, basically, fast, digital money, why does the length of the ledger have anything to do with anything. When I go to a store and buy something with cash, I don't care about the history or who owned it prior to me spending it. I just want something that the merchant will take and be on my way as quickly as possible. Yes, transactional history is a major selling point of the blockchain (to be able to verify ownership and prevent double spends) but I fail to see why there is more value in a blockchain that is 2 years older. If you want fast cash, you use an alt with fast block confirms and low fees. BCH was created to try to solve a problem that it doesn't actual solve... you're not magically going to scale with 8MB blocks, fees aren't as cheap as other alts, and blocktimes are still 10 minutes (an on average target that was hardly followed given prior diff adjustments). Bitcoin was designed to be a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system." When I read the white paper, I envisioned a better form of money for mankind, as we transition into the information age. BTC has given up on that vision in favor of a sort of "digital gold" designed to be held and not spent. That is not something I'm interested in. BCH is a return to the original vision for Bitcoin. To me, for money to be truly better, it also needs to be easy and inexpensive to use (i.e., low fees and reliable confirmations -- what you call the "cash part") but that certainly isn't the _only_ requirement of better money. So really, your argument reads mostly as a straw-man because your starting point, that "the whole premise [of BCH] is toward the cash part," was false. ...you're not magically going to scale with 8MB blocks...
We're going to scale to gigabyte blocks and beyond. But it's not magic; it's really just routine engineering and bottleneck removal. We're well on our way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M ...fees aren't as cheap as other alts...
I'm not sure how the fee market will evolve (fees will be set by supply and demand in a free market) but I find it comforting that many small blockers say "BCH will fail because fees will fall too low and the blockchain will fill up with spam" while other small blockers say "BCH will fail at achieving it's goals of low fees because fees will go through the roof once transaction volume picks up." |
|
|
|
No one cares that the Bcash ledger goes back to 2009 and the Litecoin ledger only goes back to 2011.
If we use Peter R's argument on that subject, then the noble metals (silver and gold) are a billions year old blockchain with built-in pruning, thus making anything cryptocurrency related a joke. It was a very illogical comment to make by not admitting the ledger of humans has been metals for thousands of years and it's NEVER been the scamchain. So if he claims the oldest ledger wins, then metals win, not any of this garbage. Indeed, gold did serve mankind as a sort of "analog ledger." Gold's special physical properties (scarce, durable, divisible, fungible, transportable, etc.) made it apt for this purpose. But I don't think the "oldest ledger wins" will be any sort of rule of thumb. A ledger only "wins" if the people who give it value (those whom accept it in exchange for their goods or labor) continue to value it. If it is widely believed that the distribution of money on that ledger is "sufficiently unjust," then people will work to discredit that ledger in favor of replacement, if a possible replacement exists. Imagine a world 50 years hence where "bitcoin whales" wage war and spread destruction, while the economy limps along because everyone is indebted (in BTC!) to these whale warlords. In such a future, it would be in the people's best interest to work to abandon the bitcoin ledger that is both the source of the whales' power (to fund war) and the root of their problems (due to debt). And so a new cryptocurrency ledger would emerge as people abandoned the old. I think what's happening now is a slow discrediting of the fiat ledgers, as value shifts to the crypto ledgers for similar reasons to those I described above. |
|
|
|
...but seriously, why would I use BCH over LTC? Because I don't want a coin with an option to use segwit? I'm trying to get the selling point of using BCH over something that already is established.
Since windjc asked me this exact question last week, I'll quote my response to him: "I view money as a ledger. Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value. The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on? Which is the best pen? Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1. At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth). Switching to LTC would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink. Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the one and only original. If its price goes somewhere sub 3k it's probably game over. But it won't happen until all the knockoffs die first.
$18k -> $3k (6x) wouldn't be unprecedented. In 2011, we fell from $30 -> $2 (15x), in early 2013 from $250 -> $50 (5x), and in late 2013 from $1200 -> $200 (6x). If we get away with a low of $9k (2x) I'd hardly even call that a crash! Here are projected lows compared to historical crashes: 2x: $9,000 3x: $6,000 4x: $4,500 5x (early 2013): $3,600 6x (late 2013): $3,000 10x: $1,800 15x (2011): $1,200 I'm not even saying Bitcoin didn't have worse days because it has certainly been going through a lot and came out on top. This past year has been a gold rush for Bitcoin and if it did crash back down to really low prices I think it would destroy a lot of confidence in the market. People might discard it again. And I agree on another post that Bitcoin should be USED. It's the closest thing to digital cash I have ever owned. But the transaction fees have been way too high lately. That's why I like Litecoin.  Agreed. My bet is that this isn't actually a crash, but a correction and that the bull market is still in tact. I suspect we'll see new ATHs for bitcoin in 2018. I also suspect the ratio of the two bitcoins (BCH / BTC) will be much higher though once people sober up and realize the problems with BTC....cough....cough.... |
|
|
|
hey Peter, did you see your MtGox thread is active again?
Haha cool! Thanks for letting me know. I should read that paper. The Mt Gox story is quite fascinating. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
