Create account

This is incorrect. BitcoinCash dev teams understand the importance of optimizations.

BitcoinCash devs understand that idiots can be deceived by PR scaling.
Correction: BitcoinSV devs understand the idiots can be deceived by PR scaling.
replied · 206d
Optimizations in a socialist uncompetitive manner. While copy pasting cores stuff.
replied · 206d
Not to mention that nChain's SV client is a complete carbon-copy of Bitcoin ABC 0.17.x. LOL in your face.
replied · 206d
It was forked just like ABC was. Unless you're saying it should be rather written from scratch in two months. DSV and now schnorr and maybe mimblewimble one day, that's BCH though 😆
replied · 205d
In what way is it socialist?
replied · 205d
Every limitation that was ever added by core is to protect raspberry pie nodes and kills competition. Essentially killing the scaling of bitcoin. Miners compete, bitcoin scales.
Dude. The current capacity of BCH is a LOT higher than demand.

Wake me up at sustained 1-2MB blocks, and even then it has years of headroom.
replied · 205d
Deal
replied · 205d
Because optimizations are centraly planned by devs and applied to everyone on the protocol level.
BSV goes on the path where individual miners try to outcompete others by optimizing.
replied · 205d
All development is centrally planned. Also, ABC's roadmap will create a coin so much faster than BSV, then we'll see which coin out competes the other ;)
replied · 205d
No it's not. Each miner can optimize his setting. We will se which coin will be faster ;)
replied · 205d
sure it will be faster, but it will also be proof-of-stake
replied · 205d
There doesn't seem to be any proof of stack plans in the works. Are you talking about Avalanche preconsensus?
replied · 205d
4:30


//
also to me it seems obvious that amaury doesn't trust miners, so PoS direction makes sense
replied · 205d
why are SV supporters always saying that BCH will be proof-of-stake, when noone in the community wants this and never talked about PoS at all? Jimmy is spreading propaganda there.
Bullshit #CultOfCraig propaganda.
replied · 205d
exactly
replied · 203d
Because they are full of shit?
replied · 200d
seems like, yeah :S
replied · 200d
seems like, yeah :S
replied · 205d
I don;t think it is propaganda, Can you show that AVA won't turn into POS in a short order?
replied · 205d
I think the burden is on you to show how it could. The only correlation between Avalance (a consensus algorithm) and PoS is that a coin that uses Avalnche (Ava Coin) also uses PoS.
replied · 205d
I already gave up on that. It is not clear that BCH will even use Avalanche. I'll wait until that happens. Meantime, I am not interested in AVA coin at all.
replied · 205d
Then have no concern that an avalanche based preconsensus system on BCH will lead to it becoming PoS, as the fact that AVA coin uses PoS as sybill protection is the connection here.
replied · 205d
replied · 205d
No, because AVA will be PoS, but AVA is not BCH.
replied · 205d
Haha, I'm behind on this. BCH was going to be AVA 28 days ago
https://memo.cash/post/938f468d41d133e839571673f238ae4280ecc8b8ed05524da2c7171b8dcc7017
replied · 204d
It essentially helps 0-conf transactions by protecting against double spends, and will likely help block propagation and scaling. I think it also might prevent some other problems.
replied · 204d
If a transaction meets Avalanche consensus we can feel safer accepting the transaction knowing there is no double spend, even if it still has zero confirmations on the blockchain.
replied · 204d
The BCH devs are looking to see if Avalanche consensus can be used as a preconsensus for transactions. It just manages the mempool for miners to process transactions from.
replied · 205d
Sorry I think you misunderstand. When I say "AVA" I mean the new coin that will be released. Are we talking about the same?
replied · 205d
No. Avalanche
replied · 204d
Ah okay but Avalanche is not by definition PoS.
replied · 204d
Not by definition but I suspect it quickly degenerates into PoS. How else can you trust the Avalanche data for anything? Not surprisingly, AVA coin is PoS
replied · 204d
You can base the weight of votes on POW. Yes AVA coin is PoS. Whatever this you are saying is speculation. I think Avalanche is awesome but I'll leave if BCH becomes PoS.
replied · 204d
Good point. However, PoW-based avalanche is more complicated, and it does not allow miners to come and go arbitrarily as they would surely lose trust.
replied · 200d
I don't think Avalnche becomes any more complicated if it relies on PoW, or PoS. It is it's own consensus form, and is independant of the PoW done by miners.
replied · 200d
maybe loose trust in avalanche yes. but remember that avalanche is solely going into effect if there is a conflict.
replied · 205d
BCH is amaury's pet-project; in the end & when it matters it will go his way over what 'community' wishes
replied · 205d
Besides that. You're just being dishonest. It is NOT just Amaury's pet project, but yea he puts a lot of work into it. That is how it goes. Some talk, some do.
replied · 205d
just watch this; it is very clear that what amaury says - goes
replied · 205d
It's very clear that what CSW says - goes
(This infight bitching around is pretty lame...)
replied · 205d
Oh yea? And BSV is not at aaaaalll nChain's/CSWs pet-project and miner-project? LOL
replied · 205d
BSV long-term road-map is very clear - Bitcoin V0.1
...if you can be more gung-ho at getting us there than nChain, then i'll stand behind you as well
replied · 205d
It's like if Microsoft was saying: "Windows was set in stone in Windows 95 - it had all the needed feature like windows and stuff"
replied · 205d
Try TCP/IP rather. It would be stupid if memo would say that. Than you can compare it to windows 95.
replied · 205d
if you don't trust him completely, it's better get get out now imo
replied · 205d
>As if miners wont run an implementation aside from ABC.
Jfc..
replied · 205d
ahh, so you seem to be expecting more splits & fracturing for BCH 💔
replied · 204d
Last time I'll respond to you.
Amaury doesn't matter.
replied · 205d
Hm. I give it some time.
replied · 205d
obviously avalanche is a piece in a puzzle; question is: what is the shape of the bigger picture? PoS imo is a good guess when considering amaury's miner distrust & not mining himself
replied · 205d
Why do you keep pushing this FUD? The roadmap is published. That's the big picture.
replied · 205d
You have a roadmap link handy? I'm way behind with the Bitcoin Cash ABC.
replied · 205d
avalanche-idea was supposedly floating around since the fork of BTC, i only first heard about it around JUL2018 (similar timelines with CTOR & merklix). when did you find out about it?
replied · 205d
Isn't the point of Butcoin to not have to trust the miners? There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe PoS is coming to BCH. It really seems like the source was simple FUD.
replied · 205d
making validating authority decentralised makes Bitcoin trustless. the user only has to trust that incentives work on miners.
replied · 205d
amaury's trust-issues seem different; my guess is that he would love to get rid of miners completely
replied · 205d
Why do you think Amaury has some kind of issue with miners? Seems you are basing a lot of ideas on this one idea. So far what he is doing for BCH aligns with what you say it should be.
replied · 205d
it is not just this one point; the whole nov-fork showed how he is afraid to lose control to miners, is willing to collude with exchanges & do dirty stuff to have his vision come true
replied · 205d
Again you have things backward. Amaury didnt do those things, but CSW did. He threatened any exchange or institution doesn't use his software. It likely pushed a lot away from BSV.
replied · 205d
...wasn't amaury basically writing the checkpoint-code himself? he was in on it
replied · 205d
Satoshi wrote the checkpoint code many years ago actually. The checkpoint was a response to the threats made by CSW. Had it been a honest hashwar there would have been less need.
replied · 204d
A threat from a single man forced you to convert into shitcoin. 😂🤣 Nuff said
replied · 204d
A threat from a man that he was capable of committing. The only reason people FUD about the checkpoint is that CSW is mad it was security against an attack he wanted to commit.
replied · 204d
ya, a bit of FUDding & all principles get immediately flushed down the toilet

#conviction
replied · 204d
Pretending the checkpoint was a problem is itself FUD.
replied · 204d
imo the sliding-checkpoints make BCH more fragile and further chip away at miner-control. BCH is on a slippery slope.
replied · 204d
In what way does it take control from miners? It only makes it harder for malicious miners from doing a reorg attack, just as was threatened.
replied · 204d
more FUD i guess. i've got a feeling that in year we are going hear arguments like - why even have BCH-miners waste electricity, they decide nothing, just roll a dice?
replied · 204d
Why do you think anyone from the BCH crowd is against he miners? The miners chose BCH over BSV. They continue to choose BCH over BSV.
And this fact makes every single #BSV supporter a fucking retard.
replied · 204d
one wouldn't do that with principles that strongly held
replied · 205d
can you link me those threats? i recall that CSW threatened suing exchanges that stole user's BSV coins & refused to return them
replied · 205d
I'm about to leave for work, so can't look up stuff. That said if a central authority can sue, it doesnt look good for BSV.
replied · 204d
anyone can assume the role of the defender & sue & act & threaten & do whatever else; you are welcome to do it for BCH
replied · 204d
Can anyone sue any entity I the name of another entity they have no claim over? I guess you can hope for a judge who has no understanding of the situation.
replied · 205d
1) Hm this is just a guess. I don't think it will end up as you believe but we'll see. One thing I can tell is: IF it goes as you foresee, you will see me on either moving to BSV...
replied · 205d
2) .. or staying on the pre PoS fork (still POW) BCH chain.
replied · 205d
Look man, BCH isn't going PoS, and if it does, I'll jump off that bandwagon and switch to either XMR or BSV if there is good support. But until then, BCH is definitely the best choice.
replied · 205d
I failed to read your first post, I am in total agreement with you now that I read.
replied · 205d
Good. I can say I completely agree with your above statement too.
replied · 205d
Ah, that is all wrong. Avalanche can not replace PoW. Avalanche requires PoW still, and is only a preconsensus model that helps onchain scaling, and security against double spends.
That's ironic considering the pathetic narratives of your pathetic cult.
replied · 206d
What's next. Mimblewimble? 😆🤣😂
replied · 206d
Schnorr lol... can BCH come up with something original rather? Core zelouty is strong.
replied · 206d
except that on the core side no action is happening. they talked about these things a long time ago and it's still not integrated.
replied · 206d
They can't add anything anymore due to their agenda in the past. That's why they do the bailout spin off in the form of GRIN.
replied · 206d
makes sense. haha