[ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees

[bitserve]

Assuming again that CSW has quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve, he can continue to deploy additional hash power to keep ABC buried. In order to ensure the continued viability of ABC, Bitmain would need to redirect yet additional hash power from BTC to BCH. Bitmain in this manner could possibly be drawn into redirecting most or all of its hash power from BTC to BCH.

Weird assumption. Quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve?

Yeah, assuming that, and assuming Bitmain would need (and be willing) to redirect ALL of its BTC hashrate to ABCash... then yeah, some delays would be induced in BTC for some (undetermined) time. Too much assumptions and too little impact in comparison. Risk (as in Probability*Impact) = Low.

That being said, it is an interesting "possibility" that adds some more excitement to the event. Already got my popcorns

[adaseb]

...or...

CSW is about to employ mad ninja judo skillz, to redirect bitmain's hash power to stall the BTC chain. Perhaps. (?)

In terms of known hash power, Bitmain's dwarf's CSW's - at least when you include that currently devoted to BTC. However, CSW has always had enough hash power to achieve his objective.
At the 2017 Aug fork, he had enough to mine the first blocks ensuring the viability of the BCH chain.
In the last few days, his hash power has ballooned to large majority for SV on the BCH chain.
Does he hold more in reserve? How much?

We know Bitmain holds a lot of BCH. This would indicate a commitment to ensure the ongoing viability in BCH. They currently advocate ABC. If they retain that commitment, things could get interesting.

CSW has indicated his intent to bury the ABC fork under the SV fork. In the case that he controls previously-unimagined hash power, currently in stasis...

CSW could deploy just enough hash power to indeed 'bury' the ABC fork. If Bitmain stays committed to the ABC fork, they would need to redirect hash power from BTC to BCH/ABC. Assuming again that CSW has quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve, he can continue to deploy additional hash power to keep ABC buried. In order to ensure the continued viability of ABC, Bitmain would need to redirect yet additional hash power from BTC to BCH. Bitmain in this manner could possibly be drawn into redirecting most or all of its hash power from BTC to BCH.

If Bitmain's hash power is redirected from BTC to BCH, what happens to the BTC chain? Is this enough to stall the chain? When is the difficulty retargeting?

If enough hash power is pulled from the BTC chain, this will slow down tx processing appreciably. This could be accompanied by a large volume of small-value txs (sometimes referred to as 'spam txs'). The BCH community has already developed flooding tools used in the Gigablock Test Initiative. This combination could crowd other activity out of the chain, making it economically non-viable. The net result would be rendering the BTC chain useless for economic activity. If sustained, possibly followed by chain death.

I am not attaching any sort of probability to the above scenario. But it is an interesting thing to think through.

I don't think this will happen since unlike BTC they have a different difficulty adjustment period. I havent studied up on it but it should retaeget fairly quickly unlike BTC fixed 2 week period.

Also I dont see any orphans happening either since they are under a different protocol, the 51% attacks won't work.

The bigger issue is the lack of replay protection which might cause losses for some holders.

[jbreher]

...or...

It would be really good for your mental health if you just accepted that BCH is a failure.

You sound scared.

I don't see how you can label anything with a multi-Billion market cap a failure. Whazaat make you?

[jbreher]

Assuming again that CSW has quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve, he can continue to deploy additional hash power to keep ABC buried. In order to ensure the continued viability of ABC, Bitmain would need to redirect yet additional hash power from BTC to BCH. Bitmain in this manner could possibly be drawn into redirecting most or all of its hash power from BTC to BCH.

Weird assumption. Quasi-unlimited hash power in reserve?

Yeah, assuming that, and assuming Bitmain would need (and be willing) to redirect ALL of its BTC hashrate to ABCash... then yeah, some delays would be induced in BTC for some (undetermined) time. Too much assumptions and too little impact in comparison. Risk (as in Probability*Impact) = Low.

That being said, it is an interesting "possibility" that adds some more excitement to the event. Already got my popcorns

Yes, an assumption. Not an axiom. Just following where that possibility leads.

Though, as I point out, CSW seems to always have at his disposal whatever hash necessary to achieve his objective.

[jbreher]

I don't think this will happen since unlike BTC they have a different difficulty adjustment period algorithm. I havent studied up on it but it should retaeget fairly quickly unlike BTC fixed 2 week period.

Well, that's the point. It could render BTC vulnerable to chain death. BCH, OTOH, can live through a sudden and persistent drastic reduction in hash.

Also I dont see any orphans happening either since they are under a different protocol, the 51% attacks won't work.

I don't think you've followed what I have written. Hash power can be directed to any algo compatible chain.

The bigger issue is the lack of replay protection which might cause losses for some holders.

Meh. Avoidance of replay attack has several known trivial solutions. Irrelevant.

(FWIW, the scenario indeed seems unlikely. But pretty intriguing...)

[jbreher]

Sorry sv, i do not see this as satoshi vision at all.

Curious... What specific elements of SV do you think countermand your vision of "satoshi vision"?

[Mrpumperitis]

Sorry sv, i do not see this as satoshi vision at all.

Curious... What specific elements of SV do you think countermand your vision of "satoshi vision"?

Hi J, I know your a very smart guy, maybe you have already checked this, but if you havent please do.


I first got thinking about btc guild...and as you can see what a united bitcoin community thought of that back then...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bq4ia/for_the_love_of_bitcoin_stop_mining_at_btc_guild/


I then saw this a few days ago, this is a centralized system they are proposing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNpo2mYcHGw
Jimmy good speech, but this is not what Bitcoin is about...

Then i read this and everything made sense to me....
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/fixing-op-fals-fd157899d2b7

"The aim was never to allow the creation of scripts that are designed to diminish the long-term viability of Bitcoin, and to this end miners will be able to recover this form of funds as if they were salvaging “sunken treasure”. This returns the coins into circulation."



+
OP_RETURN
We will be publishing a strategy where OP_RETURNS are published on a time basis. The amount invested into the OP_RETURN will set the length of time before these are removed and pruned.
" if a 100-KB file is to be stored for 1 year, miners’

V = T*S = 31,536,000*100/100 = 0.315 BCH

The exact figures would be left to market forces to determine. When the time has expired, a sunk fee can then be recovered by miners."



So,if you want to keep info stored on sv chain then you need to pay up at different time intervals...kinda like gas for eth.
make the permissionless blockchain into permissioned...
decentralized into centralized...
Control old keys...some very very valuable...
Is this the way faketoshi becomes satoshi, taking his coins.

[jbreher]

Sorry sv, i do not see this as satoshi vision at all.

Curious... What specific elements of SV do you think countermand your vision of "satoshi vision"?

Hi J, I know your a very smart guy, maybe you have already checked this, but if you havent please do.


I first got thinking about btc guild...and as you can see what a united bitcoin community thought of that back then...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bq4ia/for_the_love_of_bitcoin_stop_mining_at_btc_guild/

Yeah - I remember the incident. It was self-correcting, and BTC Guild never in the interim abused their outsized position. Relevance?

I then saw this a few days ago, this is a centralized system they are proposing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNpo2mYcHGw
Jimmy good speech, but this is not what Bitcoin is about...

Unsure what Shadders expounding upon the nChain client dev process has to do with whatever point you are trying to make. I've had the complete presentation on deck for watching since this morning, but have not had time to absorb it. Can you be more specific about what you see as a problem?

Then i read this and everything made sense to me....
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/fixing-op-fals-fd157899d2b7

"The aim was never to allow the creation of scripts that are designed to diminish the long-term viability of Bitcoin, and to this end miners will be able to recover this form of funds as if they were salvaging “sunken treasure”. This returns the coins into circulation."



+
OP_RETURN
We will be publishing a strategy where OP_RETURNS are published on a time basis. The amount invested into the OP_RETURN will set the length of time before these are removed and pruned.
" if a 100-KB file is to be stored for 1 year, miners’

V = T*S = 31,536,000*100/100 = 0.315 BCH

The exact figures would be left to market forces to determine. When the time has expired, a sunk fee can then be recovered by miners."

So,if you want to keep info stored on sv chain then you need to pay up at different time intervals...kinda like gas for eth.

This is a proposal for additional semantics attached to OP_RETURN. An OP_RETURN tx is already an explicitly prunable tx. What is the issue here?

make the permissionless blockchain into permissioned...

Exactly how do you see this transition happening?

decentralized into centralized...

Exactly how do you see this transition happening?

Control old keys...some very very valuable...

Exactly how do you see this transition happening?

Is this the way faketoshi becomes satoshi, taking his coins.

Are you aware of any satoshi coinbase txs with an OP_RETURN? Or am I misunderstanding your point again?

[Mrpumperitis]

Sorry sv, i do not see this as satoshi vision at all.

Curious... What specific elements of SV do you think countermand your vision of "satoshi vision"?

Hi J, I know your a very smart guy, maybe you have already checked this, but if you havent please do.


I first got thinking about btc guild...and as you can see what a united bitcoin community thought of that back then...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bq4ia/for_the_love_of_bitcoin_stop_mining_at_btc_guild/

Yeah - I remember the incident. It was self-correcting, and BTC Guild never in the interim abused their outsized position. Relevance?

-Yea it self correcting as btc guild imo did the right thing,
 sv is doing the opposite and can do all the things the redditors were worried about.

I then saw this a few days ago, this is a centralized system they are proposing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNpo2mYcHGw
Jimmy good speech, but this is not what Bitcoin is about...

Unsure what Shadders expounding upon the nChain client dev process has to do with whatever point you are trying to make. I've had the complete presentation on deck for watching since this morning, but have not had time to absorb it. Can you be more specific about what you see as a problem?

Regulation,permission...

Then i read this and everything made sense to me....
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/fixing-op-fals-fd157899d2b7

"The aim was never to allow the creation of scripts that are designed to diminish the long-term viability of Bitcoin, and to this end miners will be able to recover this form of funds as if they were salvaging “sunken treasure”. This returns the coins into circulation."



+
OP_RETURN
We will be publishing a strategy where OP_RETURNS are published on a time basis. The amount invested into the OP_RETURN will set the length of time before these are removed and pruned.
" if a 100-KB file is to be stored for 1 year, miners’

V = T*S = 31,536,000*100/100 = 0.315 BCH

The exact figures would be left to market forces to determine. When the time has expired, a sunk fee can then be recovered by miners."

So,if you want to keep info stored on sv chain then you need to pay up at different time intervals...kinda like gas for eth.

This is a proposal for additional semantics attached to OP_RETURN. An OP_RETURN tx is already an explicitly prunable tx. What is the issue here?





Exactly how do you see this transition happening?

- Control the hash, change the rules

decentralized into centralized...


Exactly how do you see this transition happening?


Control old keys...some very very valuable...


Is this the way faketoshi becomes satoshi, taking his coins.


- They can bring coins back into circulation ..."sunken treasure"?
- pay up at different time intervals to keep info on the blockchain.


Are you aware of any satoshi coinbase txs with an OP_RETURN? Or am I misunderstanding your point again?

-No and...
YEA i think you are,  

[jbreher]

Are you aware of any satoshi coinbase txs with an OP_RETURN? Or am I misunderstanding your point again?

-No and...
YEA i think you are,  

So help me understand?

I am for no block limits, believing that emergent consensus will steer the ship. I like the re-enabling of the additional satoshi opcodes, which are primarily simple atomic instructions that can be used to build more complex functions. I am unconvinced that awarding preferential treatment to DSV is a good thing. All these considerations put me softly in the SV camp.

But I'd like to understand your objections. Unfortunately, I don't yet understand exactly what your objections are. Handwaving 'decentralization and control', while not quantifying -- nor even qualifying -- that of which you speak is not bringing any clarity to the discussion.

[Bitbobb]

pumpy probably wants moar shitcoins to pump instead of focusing on cash vs money.

[Icutgrass205]

Very good reads written by CSW
"Bitcoin is not anti state, it is pro honest government"

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/bitcoin-is-not-anti-state-it-is-pro-honest-government-1ab1ec0a9fba

[bosian]

Does not look like Bitcoin Cash will take over Bitcoin...

[Zin-Zang]

Very good reads written by CSW
"Bitcoin is not anti state, it is pro honest government"

https://medium.com/@craig_10243/bitcoin-is-not-anti-state-it-is-pro-honest-government-1ab1ec0a9fba

After reading the article, one thing comes to mind

Don't Smoke Crack.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHOQAT0-Mk

It's like he goes out of his way to be the Anti-Satoshi .
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/who-is-the-antichrist-what-does-the-bible-say-about

prophesied of a “man of sin,” a liar and deceiver whose natural abilities Satan enhances by supernatural power in order to confuse people in the end time.

Describes Wright or Maxwell , Take your pick.  
https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/11/11/gregory-maxwell-admits-he-emailed-craig-wright-to-offer-assistance

Gregory Maxwell, co-founder of Blockstream, a for-profit start-up that employs many Bitcoin Core devs, has admitted he has offered tactical assistance to an individual he himself has called a fraud.

“I believe it would be adverse for interests that concern me if your influence or prominence in BCH were in any way diminished.
I am not aware of how I could be of aid in repairing this situation, but it seemed to me that it would be prudent to at least offer my discreet assistance.”

Raising the question of why does Maxwell care so much to work with an individual of whom Maxwell said on October 3rd 2017:

“If anyone from the ATO is reading this: I’d be willing to travel to AU on my own dime and offer expert testimony against this fraud.”

It appears, thus, that Maxwell is very willing to bend his principles, willing to work with an individual he believes is a fraudster.

That’s while he previously claimed to be “protect[ing] the public from being defrauded by [Wright].” Yet now he is willing to assist.

Makes you wonder who the brains really is behind the Shark Pool
https://www.ccn.com/war-bitcoin-cash-startup-launches-mining-pool-to-attack-altcoins-bch-forks/

“All alts, including forks and splits are acts of war against Bitcoin and are going to be treated as such. Shark Pool miner will exclusively mine empty blocks on alts and sell the profits for Bitcoin (BCH). We are looking for capable generals to hunt alts down at 0% poolfee!”

[bitcircle]

Does not look like Bitcoin Cash will take over Bitcoin...

This sounds really funny Bitcoin will remain always be the king of this crypto-universe while Bcash is now fell under its trap with chain split and fork issue. You should let know the facts how this ecosystem works.

[adaseb]

https://cash.coin.dance/

I wonder how accurate this is, but its crazy that amount of hash power that SV has under control.

Wondering how much hash Bitmain will need to redirect to keep the ABC chain going with adequate block times. Should be an interesting day to watch the fork, too bad it will happen when I am asleep most likely.

[jtalk]

Climax of this drama is approaching very fast which will helpful to watch things more clearly. Even what we have seen till now has shown positions of both coins already but this isn't going to settle easily. One thing is clear things are not looking good for neither side doesn't matter how it ends. Lot of people have learned many things from these conflicts of overtaking one another.

[presduterte]

If Bitmain's hash power is redirected from BTC to BCH, what happens to the BTC chain? Is this enough to stall the chain? When is the difficulty retargeting?

Sounds like you don't understand a whole lot about bitcoin.

What's your comment on your your savior's meltdown @ Roger Ver the other day?



Satoshi displayed no signs of ever being such a tremendous cunt, which is all CSW ever was.

So long Bcash. It was nice making fun of you.

[what is happening]

BCHSV doing nice

[dkbit98]

I see that CryptoBridge exchange is not supporting fork of BCH Bcash,
but Escodex exchange is supporting it for everyone who wants to have more vision.
Other exchanges are also conflicted.

Dark time ahead...