Create account

2033d · Bitcoin


"I think the innovation of Bitcoin is having a money that is not inflatable and if you have a money that can't be inflated, that is a massive tool for economic freedom."
5 / 63 17
1
547,054
replied 2033d
I really enjoyed this, sad that even Roger is kinda tired.
3
10,555
replied 2033d
It seems like a BSV fork away from CSW and CA is what everyone wants. Yet, BCH is the one in danger. Is BSV's code that good?
3
1,665
replied 2033d
It's not about the code, it's about the decisions and free market values
2
1,666
replied 2033d
These guys are much better on the economics - Deryk in particular is a thought leader - but you'll notice that they are not technical. They only have half the picture. Our devs only
2
20,555
replied 2032d
I was about to say the same. The things is these guys get multiple tech things wrong. Steve's paraphasing of Jonathan Toomim is dishonest and shows how little he understands the tech
1
10,000
replied 2031d
I was disappointed to see Steve still beating that dead horse. It was explained to him why these large blocks were a party trick. Rather than accepting the explanation, he changed tack
1
10,000
replied 2031d
Exactly. Hence the dishonesty from him.
1
555
replied 2031d
and complained about having received a different explanation in the past.
1
555
replied 2032d
when it comes anti-fragility. Also, they completely forget that 98% of everything in BSV infra is funded by Calvin and CSW, a lot indirectly through what they call "The Bitcoin
1
555
replied 2032d
Foundation" which is headed by Jimmy Nguyen the former nChain CEO.
The BSV protocol is controlled and almost exclusively mined by those entities. They can do WHATEVER the fuck they
replied 2032d
want with BSV. The huge blocks are a nice party-trick, sure, but the reality is that they are mined by the same entities in a tight connected network and the control of the network as
1
555
replied 2032d
mentioned is completely centralized and needs to be to work with the huge because besides a few minor validation improvement the same still applies to the challenges of on-chain
1
555
replied 2032d
scaling - BSV proponents have just chosen to ignore and embrace the centralized mining.
1
555
replied 2033d
have half the picture too. It's a shame they mistrust each other.
1
555
replied 2033d
It's very true, devs actually always looked down on the economic people but they end up executing really bad plans. That's the problem with Amaury too, he has too many strong opinions
3
12,603
replied 2031d
I think it is a misconception that Amaury doesn't understand the economics tbh, but just as he is VERY astute and aware of attack vectors and hence the conservative approach to
1
555
replied 2031d
relaxing limits in the protocol, I think he underestimates potential moral hazard situations & business confidence. But I do think he understands it. He has demonstrated many times
1
555
replied 2031d
that he does understand the stakes.
1
555
replied 2031d
I don't think so, community went through so much to settle the IFP catastrophe and many people lost confidence in BCH. Now they think Avalanche is emergency.
1
555
replied 2031d
If a downvoted proposal is enough for people to loose confidence they propably shouldn't be in this space in the first place. However, I do agree that the threat of splitting is
1
555
replied 2031d
damaging as hell, and everyone who actively encourages a split at given points should be shunned. I just hope that BCH will achieve what no other crypto so far has achieved - REAL
2
1,110
replied 2031d
decentralization that means a fairly equal distribution of different node software used as mining. Right now it is still 80-90% (it swings) ABC and the rest BCHN. There needs to be 1
1
555
replied 2031d
or 2 more mining-grade nodes and miners running them so that we have have at least a "quadruply" when it comes to mining node software used for mining (25%,25%,25%,25% give or take).
1
555
replied 2031d
How do you know that number is for ABC? Coin.dance results is saying ABC and others because if miners don't flag they can't recognize the software. They only flag BCHN
replied 2031d
That is true, however, most miners dropped BU sometime ago after a critical consensus bug that nearly accidentally split the network. It revealed how poorly tested their software was
1
555
replied 2031d
(at least at the time). Verde + BCHD have a plan to make theirs mining grade, but not there yet, and Knuth is new so that leaves ABC and BCHN, unless there is a one I have missed...?
1
555
replied 2031d
replied 2031d
Not everyone follow the news line by line. They see people talking about tax and leave
replied 2031d
Yea well, there will always be noise. Next time it is something else. Sometimes justified, other times armchair "experts" spending energy on virtriol instead of building.
replied 2031d
You can't just call it noise. The main node literally put his BCH address in the code and shipped it amid widespread community disagreement.If it's not screaming instable Idk wht it is
1
555
replied 2031d
I don't disagree with that part of the reaction and noise. I am against that as well. The wider problem is the way white list is handled, not so much the coinbase redirect.
1
555
replied 2031d
The problem is he shipped the code even knowing everyone is against it including some of the people in the whitelist. It just shows he has no respect for the opinion of others.
1
replied 2031d
If you can't work with others do you deserve to be the maintainer of a distributed software handling money for the world?
replied 2031d
IFP could be executed if Amaury knew how to work with other people peacefully. He dismissed other node teams, made a whitelist and mocked people who were against it in Twitter
1
555
replied 2031d
Actually, the IFP should never be executed with the way it is/was done. Whitelist control must be decentralized & it is not in the current version. THAT is really the problem.
1
555
replied 2031d
I don't consider someone like that to be aware of what's at stakes.
1
555
replied 2033d
My hope is on BCHN and other nodes to get acceptance and gradually maintain the network according to the free market goals we all have.
1
555
replied 2033d
As they mentioned apps and developers are the key. We need really good onboarding process for developers. Right now it's so messy to develop anything on BCH
1
555
replied 2031d
Not sure how you come up with BCH is the one in danger.
replied 2033d
I like those guys.
I can’t help but think that the root of BCHs woes are the 6 monthly forks. It really is a poison pill.
1
555
replied 2032d
I am not impressed with the BSV proponents ignorance of the on chain scaling of a network in _decentralized_ and censorship free fashion. However, Deryk indeed has a point regarding
2
10,555
replied 2032d
the constant threat every 6 months that is detrimental to stability and investor confidence. I will give him that, absolutely.
1
3,333
replied 2031d
i also think they tend to oversimplify scaling. btc take one extreme, bsv the other.
homopit
replied 2032d
Upgrade schedule was set on purpose even before BCH forked. It's meant to accelerate development for a few years at start, for new features. Not meant to cont. forever at that pace.
replied 2031d
Maybe a 1-year cycle like the guy from Verde suggested as a compromise in a video-call some days ago.
2
3,333
homopit
replied 2032d
"set" meaning "agreed on, by all involved parties at that time". Times have changed now, development slowed down... we can talk about slowing down upgrade cycles.
1
replied 2031d
Yes, I know. I understand why it was done, and I am not even sure that it should be dropped entirely right now, since there are still a few possible consensus changes that are needed
replied 2031d
to scale better on-chain (yes, also better than BSV, namely so that the network can run at higher capacity with the same distribution, redundacy and hence anti-censorship/fragility).
replied 2033d
Scheduled hardforks should be at least 8 month apart. It's burdensome to be forced to upgrade frequently if you run a bch service.
1
5,555
replied 2031d
One thing is the dev ops side of it - that part I am actually less worried about. It is more an inconvinience that an actual large issue. It is possibility for a split either by error
1
555
replied 2031d
or social vitriol that makes building business on the network and investor confidence go out the window.
homopit
replied 2033d
Exaggeration. Updates are out every few weeks. A serious business that run nodes should update.
16NsuiTVfJ
replied 2032d
AWS was created by a retailer that wanted to guarantee availability on 10 days of the year. No serious retail business wants to hardfork their payment network between Singles Day and
16NsuiTVfJ
replied 2032d
Black Friday.
replied 2033d
That's a very ignorant view. We are talking about financial software. Every hard fork costs money to test and roll out for businesses.
homopit
replied 2033d
Exaggeration. Updates are out every few weeks. A serious business that run nodes should update.
replied 2033d
More of the same ignorance.... You're boring.
replied 2033d
at least. especially if services don’t know which new thing being cooked up will be implemented and whether or not it will split the community (again)
replied 2033d
"I think the innovation of Bitcoin is having a money that is not inflatable and if you have a money that can't be inflated, that is a massive tool for economic freedom. Even if we
1
555
replied 2033d
didn't get anything else, that tool alone dramatically reduces the power of the state because the state funds itself through inflation and deficit financing and if they're not able to
2
555
replied 2033d
do that - if people have an alternative, that alone just completely strips the state of a lot of power. It's not perfect. It's not everything we would want it to be, but it's a
3
1,110
replied 2033d
massive improvement."

**- Deryk Makgill**
1
555
Ignis
replied 2029d
whats the value of BCH if there are no Dollars?


About Privacy Terms Stats