Last of the V8s started abusing the trust system
I started and finished long back, unlike you. Your red trust for me still stands and yet we've never traded, god forbid. Where's that irony gif when you need it? |
|
|
|
love how no one ever knows where the hairyfairy comes from
some say he's a yank
some say he's a limey
i think he must be a kiwi
whaddayagonnado
1. Thank fuck for that.
2. Fuck this shit.
3. I fucking told you so.
4. ??
5. Carry the fuck on.
I'm sensing a congruency. |
|
|
|
Colonoscopy completed. Medium sized polyp detected and removed. Biopsy report in 1 week. Expecting benign results.
Take care of your assholes, brothers.
Hope everything is OK brother, I’m sure it will be. I had a couple of lumps on the inside of my cheeks recently, was driving myself crazy, worrying. Turned out they are a build up of scar tissue from bad cheek biting, most likely when I’m asleep. I'd suggest putting a muzzle on your bed partner. Or maybe sleep in kevlar unnnerwears. |
|
|
|
Great! Additional opportunities for clique-based, in-crowd, virtue-signaling, social-engineering, playground bullying! /s |
|
|
|
That was actually a pretty thought-provoking interview. |
|
|
|
Shelby has asked me to pass on his response:
Thanks, THX. How's LUH? Fine, I hope. I've taken the liberty to unroll a quote level.
First, calm down. For someone so hasty to dish out negative classifications, you sure do have a thin skin. There was no character assassination in my post. This is not the first time you've run off the handle after some merely-imagined slight. I apologize for any offense. None was meant. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time. If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising. My _explicit_ point was that BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, and all other public PoW blockchains suffer this same tendency for mining centralization. I made no claim that BSV was somehow immune from this force. How about you actually address this point, instead of some straw man invention of your own? No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.
Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.
I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle. Yes, there is the puzzle of how -- as you claim -- any blockchain without an immutable block size cap is doomed to certain failure (that is your claim, right?), that Bitcoin survived through the era of the successively abandoned lesser soft block size caps. And I would not have worded the preceding so forcefully, had you not previously indicated to me that you would study these events -- of which you admitted your ignorance -- and provide a suitable explanation of how your theory is congruent with these facts. How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out?
I'm not claiming to have worked out any puzzle. I am just saying that the previously-existing soft block caps are puzzling, as they seem to provide direct counter evidence of your theory. Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it.
Here's a place to start: http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block , complete with handy pointers to further evidence. Let me know if you need more. AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.
So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.
See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap. At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB. So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot. Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever. You seem to believe this is fatal. I do not. All experience hath shewn that, absent outside regulatory force, detrimental natural monopolies are unstable. OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.
Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)? Again with the straw man. In direct conflict with what I posted so clearly only one paragraph previously. I am not claiming any hard fork which absolves BSV of the privacy sins of BTC, et al. I am explicitly claiming that they all sit in the same bucket in this regard. But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.
What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity What's with the 'anonymity'? Did you see me employ that term in my arguments above? No. The discussion is not anonymity. It is privacy. Different animals. If you want to discuss anonymity, that's fine, but that's a separate issue. But frankly, my discussion here is merely to compare and contrast BSV with the other Bitcoin forks (to include 0.5.3, which one could argue is either a fork or not a fork). I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps. Done. In this post above. Not done. You have provided no explanation which I can discern which explains away the events of the block size soft caps not resulting in the armageddon you foretell for lack of immutable block size caps. Perhaps with the info leading to comprehensive links I provided above, you will be able to work these into your theory. People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then. Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'. Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size. For someone so forceful in application of the power law, your willingness to ignore it completely as a force for mining centralization is aggravating. If you can quantify the centralization forces due to your so-called (ad argumento) 'lack of block size cap Schelling point' and due to the power law distribution of resources and capabilities, and then show how the latter is insignificant as compared to the former, then you will have made a point. Otherwise, no. And again, the original v0.1 protocol did not and does not have a 1MB block size cap. BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.
I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you. I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché. There was no character assassination expressed or implied. You seem to have been so aggravated by the imagined slight such that you walked right over my point. To wit: It matters not what the rhetoric surrounding a coin is, as long as is does not affect the protocol. And the reality is that the loudest voices in 'state loving' within BSV are the very same voices advocating protocol stability. Until such time as you see significant credible call for modifying BSV's protocol to further serve the state, appeals to base emotion based upon suspicion of the state are invalid in technical argument. Touche' indeed. |
|
|
|
...he spent a large number of months talking his book and denigrating ...
Perhaps you may find a mirror to be of some use, JJG. The only denigrating I see is coming from you. Can you 'splained ur selfie? Yeah. I 'splain myself. You have been nothing but rude to joiniv, attacking him/her as if your bullish sentiment is somehow morally superior to his/her bearish outlook. I'm as bullish as the next guy. I don't agree with joiniv's outlook. But I see no call for your rudeness (IOW, denigration). And to accuse joiniv of being denigrating is beyond the pale. As you are constantly the one escalating the hostilities. |
|
|
|
...he spent a large number of months talking his book and denigrating ...
Perhaps you may find a mirror to be of some use, JJG. The only denigrating I see is coming from you. |
|
|
|
My negative balaance? I sold at 11500 long at 3500 sold at 6000. I know you'er a bit dim, but surely even mentally challenged ppl like yourself can work that one out.
I don't agree with your current bearish sentiment, but credit where due. |
|
|
|
Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video. The flaws I see in his reasoning: 1. Recording of all data—without any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountable—is totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data can’t rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government is a “monopoly on violence”, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional. OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc. But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx. Further, where exactly do you see BSV as a bastion of democracy? Nay, it is explicitly a meritocracy. For these reasons, I reject your characterization of BSV as a tool of totalitarianism. At least without discussion of some other vector thereof. 2. The “solution” provided by BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another. Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old dysfunctional political order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s). So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive. Craig's rhetoric is rather state-loving*, this is true. However, I have yet to hear him advocate any protocol changes in order to make the blockchain more useful for the state. His rhetoric is descriptive, not prescriptive. So what's your point? *To put a finer point on it, not so much state-loving as civilization-loving or society-loving, with the state being merely proxy these otherwise nebulous 'collective-pseudo-entities'. I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps. People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then. Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'. And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin. Great. Then again, you've been claiming to have the ultimate anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency design for years. Maybe it is time to get coding? BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.
I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you. |
|
|
|
Inb4: '...bubut Ira is really just part of Craig's long con, being paid under the table...' |
|
|
|
Most notable: not a single instance of 'climate change'. |
|
|
|
It's the GF's fault. She drags me off to bed earlier ...
You ol' dawg, you. |
|
|
|
|
No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.
Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.
|
|
|
|
::sigh:: Shelby discovered somethings he'd like to change in an earlier post. To wit: Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video. The flaws I see in his reasoning: 1. Recording of all data—without any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountable—is totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data can’t rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government is a “monopoly on violence”, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional. 2. The “solution” provided by BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another. Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s). So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive. Please forward my criticisms to Craig. Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. The only reason it is functioning now is because Craig’s group controls most of the mining and because they have the centralized political power to fork the code and get all the miners to adhere. It is not the size of the blocks that it is the issue per se. But the fact that changes to the size can not be decentralized. Also very large block sizes that are not currently fully utilized can be used to destroy other miners and entirely centralize the mining. Well the mining is already centralized, so this is their poison pill to make sure it remains centralized. Craig will never tell you this and he will ban me from any discussions so I can not debate him. I will destroy him in any debate. Put me on a live youtube debate with Craig and I will roast his ass so badly that he will lose all credibility. Not because I hate him, but because he does not tell the entire story. He hides information that he does not want you to know. Or he is incredibly naive. Do you not know how large blocks can be used to destroy other miners? Simple, they drive the transaction fees too low. This is not an issue while the coinbase rewards are significant, but will be an issue later. In short, BSV is technologically inept and will die a fiery death eventually. People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then. Craig is no Satoshi. I am much closer to being Satoshi than he is (and yet I’m still not and very far from being), from the standpoint of technological knowledge. Craig is an erudite, learnt man. I am a (unfortunately chronically ill, as was Craig’s former partner) mad-scientist, primary researcher. These are facts, not hubris. And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin. Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow.
Agreed, but AFAICS irrelevant to my points above.
1. The argument is that govs can / must globally compete and the open ledger is the correct way how to do. ( see Swissy regulation here...)
And I rebuked that theory. Competition between democracies does nothing to rectify the inherent flaw of democracy. Only decentralization, trustlessness, permissionlessness, and (optional) anonymity can help us. We need a symmetrical power to resist tyranny. If you think the Swiss aren’t also destroying themselves, I have bridge on Mars to sell you. Do you need me to cite some Armstrong blogs about the political corruption in Switzerland? 2. We both know that profitable systems ALWAYS centralize but profit is the only working incentive to keep Bitcoin stable and valuable to all users.
Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol Bitcoin is decentralized enough, except for the dominance of ASICs and the fact that for example solar power in the middle of rural areas is not as viable as hydropower, because ASICs improve too fast so need to keep the hardware running all the time. I believe there may be a technological solution to this. Did you know that solar power is now less expensive than grid power (as low as 1.5 cents per kwh) in places such as Chili and the Middle East. Then of course we need scaling but with constant block sizes. Again I there may possibly be a technological solution for this as well. And we need anonymity that is not entirely broken and centralized as is the case for Monero (I am entirely vindicated!)The only repulsive force that works against the profit attractor is maximum fricktion gained by max openess for any operational risks including legal risks that e.g. are mainly responsible to break up chinese mining cartells atm.
Lol. Depending on the government to ameliorate the Iron Law of Political Economics centralization due to the game theory of political control. Sounds very logical.  Craig simply offers nothing new and just wants to take us back to old centralized Internet. Sorry. Facts. |
|
|
|
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.
By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction. All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already. |
|
|
|
The UASF non-mining node army is ostensibly what pressured the miners into bending over and accepting Segwit. So history has shown that they can indirectly provide benefit, depending on what you'd consider a benefit.
That is certainly a possibility. Why miners would bother listening to what a sybillable agglomeration of entities that have no demonstrable relationship to economic power is an exercise in understanding delusional stupidity. But there it is. So yes. In at least one instance, it has been demonstrated that a detriment can be foisted upon the network by PoSM. But in no way was this demonstrative of forcing a benefit upon the network via the power of non-mining fully-validating entities. |
|
|
|
|
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.
|
|
|
|
I have read somewhere that BSV have a built-in code that allows law enforcement to freeze any asset,...
Oh, you've read somewhere, eh? Have you read the code? No? Right. Perpetuating bullshit propaganda, you are. |
|
|
|
Another missive from Shelby: Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video. The flaws I see in his reasoning: 1. Recording of all data so that omniscient governments can be held accountable is totalitarianism because accountability does nothing to fix the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Transparency of data can’t rectify that flaw of democracy. So given the [Weberian definition of government]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence), removing our ability to be private means absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. 2. The “solution” of BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another. So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive. Please forward my criticisms to Craig. Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning all the arguments. Go ask @kLee et al. I'll reply downthread |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
