Create account

replied 878d
Bitcoin Faucet
I rather think we just prevented it by not letting SV being the majority chain.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
ABC - Another blockstream company.

replied 877d
Does SV shills have anything constructive to offer? Just a tad bit?
replied 877d
We are here to make Bitcoin Cash again and not to castrate it at 32MB.
replied 877d
How is that propagation and orphaning working for you at the moment? :-)
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
Shill implies i'm being paid. I am not. I give money away.
I simply support the white paper which Bitcoin ABC (a blockstream company) is again trying to subvert.
replied 876d
How are they subverting the whitepaper?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
The ABC devs are basically all Blockstream drones.
Bitcoin ABC (Another Blockstream Company)
They laughed at you guys when they came up with that.
replied 876d
More fud
replied 876d
do you have a link to this?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
I sure do.
replied 876d
i'd like to read it if you're willing to post it.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
modulus
replied 875d
Why aren't the stress test txs replayed on the ABC chain? Nothing substantial has been added to SV to make bigger blocks possible. ABC/BU can handle that too.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
That's what we have been trying to say since 2011. lol
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
Then why did they fork away from larger blocksizes? Because they never plan on increasing the blocksize. You guys get jihans wormhole aka LN.
modulus
replied 874d
What are you talking about? There's nothing to increase, the blocksize cap is ADJUSTABLE, miners can set it to what ever they want.
replied 875d
How is wormhole anything like LN? Please stop making random parallels between things that have nothing obvious in common. It really doesn't help me understand your point.
replied 874d
Yep, lightning network was supposed to be for faster transactions. Wormhole is for smart contracts. Bitcoin Faucet is a douche. Every post is FUD.
cbeastsv
replied 874d
LN and Wormhole are similar in function. LN requires smart contracts, Wormhole supports smart contracts. A perfect fit.
replied 873d
Wasn't BSV supposed to be turing complete?
cbeastsv
replied 873d
What's does that have to do with supporting LN?
replied 874d
More Fud.
replied 876d
yeah… that’s great and all but doesn’t support your claim that “The ABC devs are basically all Blockstream drones.” http://i.imgur.com/A3oUmxl.gifv
replied 876d
this one work?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d


How many ABC updates have there been since the fork? 5?
What are you changing? What are you afraid of?
replied 875d
I just want a link to info about ABC being related to blockstream. dont really care which one wins out (obvi own equal number of each)
replied 875d
Yep the ABC Blockstream comparison is just FUD. it's created by sore losers.
bchbtch
replied 875d
Does the fact that they are overtly acting in the same way mean anything to you? Or is it not real unless it's on a webpage?
replied 875d
If they are acting in the same way, then why didn't they just stick with BTC?
bchbtch
replied 875d
I cannot read the minds of the ABC decision makers, I think they are making a mistake.
replied 875d
Dude. Bitmain is by far biggest crypto company. They own way more BCH than BTC. I think they know what they are doing way more than your opinion. LOL
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
Doesn't look like it.
replied 875d
What it looks like is CSW is playing the drums on your ass.
bchbtch
replied 875d
I trust my own opinion 99% of the time. I'm not always right but I always learn as much as possible.
replied 875d
Well I give you that. Everybody should trust their own opinion more.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
Yes it does! Isn't she amazing? 😍
replied 876d
Faketoshi does it again. LOL
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
These "software bottlenecks" take weeks to fix and roll out. Not years.
SpaceX built an entire fleet of space ships in less time than it took to deploy segwit.
replied 875d
This is not an argument. Making and flying a rocket is nothing like deploying a change in a protocol. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
They also created a fake stress test to show they couldn't create 32MB blocks.
But SV just mined a 64MB block and is pumping out 32MB blocks at will.
replied 875d
... scale linearly. So just because we can do 33 to 65 doesn't mean that we'll go faster. If you don't parallelize the block verification how will you take advantage of multicore CPUs?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
Maybe you should read the SV road map.
https://bitcoinsv.io/roadmap/
Q1 2019
replied 874d
Thanks for the link. I did go through it. So SV is planning to add multithreaded verification of blocks. But it doesn't answer how you can handle a stream of 128mb blocks right now.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 874d
Who said anything about a stream? Blocks are produced on average every 10 minutes.
Most decent servers can process 128MB block in about 5 to 10 seconds.
replied 869d
Also, ordering information doesn't grow linearly as the blocks increase in size. So CTOR will be an immense boon for graphene when blocks get huge.
replied 874d
... it. But if you say that most servers can already handle it then cool. Will they be able to handle it with DSV as well btw? Is it more complex than normal sigverify or same cmplxty?
Nikamoto
replied 874d
Interested too for dsv. I think it's the same thing but I'm not sure
replied 869d
It should be the same complexity as normal sig verify but I guess you can put many of them in one TX. Otherwise Ryan's point about DSV being a subsidy doesn't make sense.
homopit
replied 869d
True, it really doesn't make sense.
replied 874d
Yeah it's a stream of blocks, one per 10min. Ideally you'd want the median server to be able to *easily* handle processing the blockchain so that people can build services on top of...
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 874d
This network is intended for miners and merchents not people running rasberry pi's.
replied 875d
So why didn't CSW install the "Original Bitcoin Protocol" in the last update? Shouldn't have that been the first thing they did?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
What's in the oringal white paper thats not in SV?
replied 875d
That's not answering the question.
replied 875d
I'm not sure about this one as I don't know the details of the test but first of all, one 64MB block doesn't mean much, it needs to show sustained rate. Secondly, some things don't...
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
By adding CTOR (jihan patent) and OP codes that are not included in the whitepaper.
Also the next fork will include a "maliablity fix" that is basically another form of segwit.
replied 875d
The problem with Segwit was never that it fixes transaction malleability. The problem was that it reduced the incentive of miners to witness signatures in order to get the TX fees.
replied 876d
1)CTOR is not patented. It is a simple sorting order. 2) Mal.fix != Seggregated Witness
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
1) Yes, but ASIC boost which is used to implant CTOR is patented.
2) Any decoupling of the txid from the tx is Segwit. Mal.fix === Seg wit
replied 875d
CTOR does not have anything todo with ASICBOOST. Mal. fix can be done in several ways.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
ASICBoost is transaction ordering.
CTOR is transaction ordering.
replied 875d
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
ASIC Boost is the hardware implmentation of CTOR. They are one and the same.
HERE IS A LINK FOR YOU TO READ: http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
replied 875d
I read it. I don't see any reason why a patent on ASICBOOST would stop someone from using CTOR. Can you explain in more detail?
replied 876d
More Fud
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
Hey look the retard that posts evey 15 min all day long and is not a shill is BACK! Whoohoooo
replied 876d
More Fud
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
Septmike you're acting like a bot. You keep posting the same thing over and over again.
replied 876d
You keep posting fud over and over again.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 876d
But you keep posting every hour 24 hours a day. Do you ever sleep?
You must love roger so much.
replied 876d
Interesting you have 231 followers and follow no one. Who are you really? You are clearly here just to spread fud.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 875d
I follow the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
cbeastsv
replied 876d
Said the sock puppet.
replied 876d
replied 876d
And I only have 1365 actions since June. That is dinky compared to some of the people on here.
replied 876d
You are still making shit up. Go look at my posts, there is at least a 10 hour spread between one post and another post.
replied 877d
Ok, fair enough. But I suppose you need to project when the 100% centralized 3 SV miner cartel manages to rek their own network with the Satoshi Shitgun, and couldn't bring down ABCs.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
a 2 block reorg happens at least once a month, it's a non issue. It is however making 10 to 32 mb blocks while ABC is making an average of 0 MB blocks.
You have one miner...Jihan
replied 877d
One Miner???? BCH has 6 Mining pools. SV has 4. And Bitcoin.com leads the way, not Antpool. Not sure what you are smoking.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
He is smoking CSW's farts.
replied 877d
LOL...yeah
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
Yeah those are all jihans miners.
replied 877d
Well if you are going to go that route, then the 4 pools on the CSW side are all CSW miners. LOL
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
Do you think SV will produce 128 mb blocks full of legit transactions by telling everyone to piss off?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
This eco system is not the target audience. This is bigger than what a bunch hobbyist devs on reddit think.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
And what is the target audience you are targeting by telling it to piss off exactly?
Barricade
replied 877d
Barricade
replied 877d
This is the result of big blocks without fixing bottlenecks first.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
SpaceX built a fleet of space ships in the same time it took blockstream to release segwit.
Fixing problems in software takes weeks not years.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
SpaceX built nice CGI footages.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
orpahns are a natural occurance on this network. Its up to miners to fix, not devs paid by special interest. Now that miners have control of the software they can make it work
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
You mean Craig?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
SV have 0 network effect. They shitted on it and put it on fire. Their leadership is arogant, abrasive, divisive. Good luck with any of that.
BitcoinHoarder
replied 877d
Now 64 MB block by coin geek.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
ABC is not even a company.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
Nope.
replied 877d
hahah
BitcoinIsP2PC4$H
replied 877d
🤣
replied 877d
Just More Fud.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
When you took your profile pic where you going for the, hey look at me i'm a retard look?
replied 877d
When you took your profile pic were you going for the "I am nothing" Look? Or the I am so fuck*ing ugly I can't even put my pic on here look?
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
Acutally its the i'm rich and good looking - i don't want anybody to know who i am look :)

replied 876d
k
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 878d
I think that ABC stands for Another Blockstream Company.
replied 878d
You are such a moron. If that's what ABC was doing then they wouldn't own a hell of a lot more BCH than BTC. They own much less of BTC because of blockstream. Stop spreading fud.
1DFZPecWiDxtkhQv
replied 878d
I think that SV stands for Shit Version.
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 877d
OMG that's so funny.
anarchovegan
replied 877d
Aren't we using SV by default on here?
replied 877d
we use both here on Memo. Ryan chose SV for Yours.org and Moneybutton.
replied 877d
Two polar bears strangling each other.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 877d
Ryan has tied himself legally to CSW and his patents.
anarchovegan
replied 877d
Horrifying.
replied 877d
I will use Memo until I am out of sats. After that I will only use it if I can deposit ABC coins, since I will propably sell my BSV tokens.