Create account

replied · 122d
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 · 122d
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 · 122d
No it's not. Each miner can optimize his setting. We will se which coin will be faster ;)
replied · 122d
sure it will be faster, but it will also be proof-of-stake
replied · 122d
There doesn't seem to be any proof of stack plans in the works. Are you talking about Avalanche preconsensus?
replied · 122d
4:30


//
also to me it seems obvious that amaury doesn't trust miners, so PoS direction makes sense
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
exactly
replied · 120d
Because they are full of shit?
replied · 117d
seems like, yeah :S
replied · 117d
seems like, yeah :S
replied · 122d
I don;t think it is propaganda, Can you show that AVA won't turn into POS in a short order?
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
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 · 122d
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 · 122d
replied · 122d
No, because AVA will be PoS, but AVA is not BCH.
replied · 122d
Haha, I'm behind on this. BCH was going to be AVA 28 days ago
https://memo.cash/post/938f468d41d133e839571673f238ae4280ecc8b8ed05524da2c7171b8dcc7017
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 122d
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 · 122d
No. Avalanche
replied · 121d
Ah okay but Avalanche is not by definition PoS.
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 117d
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 · 117d
maybe loose trust in avalanche yes. but remember that avalanche is solely going into effect if there is a conflict.
replied · 122d
BCH is amaury's pet-project; in the end & when it matters it will go his way over what 'community' wishes
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
just watch this; it is very clear that what amaury says - goes
replied · 122d
It's very clear that what CSW says - goes
(This infight bitching around is pretty lame...)
replied · 122d
Oh yea? And BSV is not at aaaaalll nChain's/CSWs pet-project and miner-project? LOL
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
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 · 121d
Try TCP/IP rather. It would be stupid if memo would say that. Than you can compare it to windows 95.
replied · 122d
if you don't trust him completely, it's better get get out now imo
replied · 122d
>As if miners wont run an implementation aside from ABC.
Jfc..
replied · 122d
ahh, so you seem to be expecting more splits & fracturing for BCH 💔
replied · 121d
Last time I'll respond to you.
Amaury doesn't matter.
replied · 122d
Hm. I give it some time.
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
Why do you keep pushing this FUD? The roadmap is published. That's the big picture.
replied · 122d
You have a roadmap link handy? I'm way behind with the Bitcoin Cash ABC.
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
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 · 122d
making validating authority decentralised makes Bitcoin trustless. the user only has to trust that incentives work on miners.
replied · 122d
amaury's trust-issues seem different; my guess is that he would love to get rid of miners completely
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 121d
...wasn't amaury basically writing the checkpoint-code himself? he was in on it
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
A threat from a single man forced you to convert into shitcoin. 😂🤣 Nuff said
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
ya, a bit of FUDding & all principles get immediately flushed down the toilet

#conviction
replied · 121d
Pretending the checkpoint was a problem is itself FUD.
replied · 121d
imo the sliding-checkpoints make BCH more fragile and further chip away at miner-control. BCH is on a slippery slope.
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 121d
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 · 121d
one wouldn't do that with principles that strongly held
replied · 121d
can you link me those threats? i recall that CSW threatened suing exchanges that stole user's BSV coins & refused to return them
replied · 121d
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 · 121d
anyone can assume the role of the defender & sue & act & threaten & do whatever else; you are welcome to do it for BCH
replied · 121d
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 · 122d
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 · 122d
2) .. or staying on the pre PoS fork (still POW) BCH chain.
replied · 122d
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 · 122d
I failed to read your first post, I am in total agreement with you now that I read.
replied · 122d
Good. I can say I completely agree with your above statement too.
replied · 122d
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.