gildings in this subreddit have paid for 15.79 months of server time

Jihan Wu: BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. by zndtoshiRedditor for less than 2 weeks in btc

[–]Jihan_Bitmain 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Wormhole is just one of the five op_return token solutions out there. It is open source and we do it for free to let the community have a choice. We are also happy to see other token solutions to win, which is a win for BCH as a whole. Only Fake Satoshi and his cults are attacking it based on lies and non-sense, because of jealous. Where is your Fake Satoshi God's promised token solution?

A short statement on the role of miners in the future of Bitcoin cash. by shadders333 in btc

[–]shadders333[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think you missed the point of the article. The stress test already showed that a limit in excess of what current software can handle doesn't break bitcoin. The point is that we can make improvements now and delpoy them after November. Improvements that improve block capacity but we don't have to wait until May when devs decides for us that it's safe to realise those gains. Devs should not be dictating this and currently they are... The entire debate over big blocks that precipitated the birth of Bitcoin cash was about devs taking a paternalistic attitude and deciding on behalf of the rest of the ecosystem what was in their best interests. We need to break that mode of thinking. Devs are at best consultants, at worst staff... Miners are the executive power in Bitcoin. Devs should not be trying to dictate these decisions.

Making Bitcoin Cash predictable by JonathanSilverblood in btc

[–]edoera 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If you can't see the same type of parallel in this as in BTC propaganda, you are probably blind.

He deliberately leaves out other more mature implementations such as unlimited (#2 market share) and XT, and instead suggests BitPrim (whose founder is also super political and spends most of his time spreading propaganda when nobody really uses BitPrim. I fail to understand how he spends more time attacking nchain and csw character than talking about his own projects), and BCash. Bcash is a great piece of engineering but is nowhere close to recommending as the "alternative" while not mentioning the direct competition of ABC (Unlimited). Leaving out critical information is a typical propaganda tactic.

He also mentions Cobra, probably trying to get his support. Again, even aside from Cobra potentially being a clever BTC troll, this behavior is disgusting. Instead of actually showing by doing, these guys are busy spreading propaganda, getting "partnerships" (Does that sound like some shitcoin like TRON to you?) and getting external allies that should NOT affect how Bitcoin itself operates (such as exchanges. Centralized exchanges are doing a great job today and I applaud them for providing their service, but they have NO place in dictating the future of the low level protocol. They are merely USERS, no matter how helpful they are) just so that they can bundle in this new feature that many people dislike. The only "alternatives" they mentioned are those who said they will support ABC.

And even this is deceptive. If you use an "alternative" that uses the same contentious algorithm as ABC, then is that a true "alternative"? They are just propaganda vehicles. It's like Facebook saying "Do you hate how Facebook monitors all your behavior on social networks? Well here are some alternatives, use Instagram! Or use Whatsapp!" WITHOUT disclosing how they own both of them. Even Facebook doesn't try to pull this type of disgusting obvious propaganda tactic.

The main selling point of these people seems to be "Look at CSW and their cult. You hate him right? So just use our software. Oh by the way, we are adding these experimental features we haven't even completed yet, we THINK it's fine, so just believe us and go with it. You hate CSW so you have no choice!" Instead of competing on merits, these people are using disgusting politics and propaganda, which Bitcoin is supposed to get rid of. We're left with the same politicians, but much more amateur.

Scan through the entire article and try to categorize the content literally. Most of them are political content (talking about partnerships and attacking other party instead of standing on its own merit). Now go on Twitter and watch some disgusting "BTC Maximalists" talk. You'll find them eerily sounding similar.

Amaury Séchet opinion on BIP135 consensus changes activated after miner voting by Spartan3123 in btc

[–]n9jd34x04l151ho4 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wow, so he is essentially saying Proof of Aumary decides which chain is the real Bitcoin Cash. Sounds about as good as Proof of Vitalik Immutability Doesn't Matter coin.

I sure as hell don't want another situation where one development team has all the say in the direction of the currency. If I wanted that kind of centralisation I'd go to BTC or ETH.

Time to uninstall the ABC client and install BU, XT, SV etc instead. Ideally these competing teams would use proposals to vote on specific features to be implemented together in the next hard fork to maintain agreement on the protocol going forward.

Also hard forking every 6 months seems too arbitrary and demanding on everyone. Once a year would be smoother and allow for more testing and stability.

The Case for Adding CTOR To Bitcoin Cash in November by jonald_fyookball in btc

[–]edoera 19 points20 points  (0 children)

No it's highly contentious because EVERYONE except for ABC, You, and a few contends. And all of you people are using social media, propagandist articles like this, and "CSW is evil" card to push your point, while completely ignoring the real problem, which is: You are advocating for a feature to be added into Bitcoin that hasn't been tested and there's only two months left.

Your constant talking point of "Hey this has been on the roadmap from the beginning" is completely irrelevant because we are talking about ACTUAL feature or prototype that people can try out TODAY. There isn't one. Even if there was one, it's too rushed when there's only two months left.

You used to be the one person in the entire BCH community whom I used to respect the most because you always strived to be unbiased. All that respect just crumbles away when you make comments like this which is obviously false.

Is BU agreeing with ABC? Is Flowee agreeing with ABC? Is XT agreeing with ABC? Are you simply deciding to ignore these groups? Or is it because you hate nchain?

I understand you're pissed because nchain decided not to fund you and kicked out of their slack. That is one thing. And you are free to criticize nchain as much as you want for mistreating you, and I would support that.

But that is no reason to advocate for adding a feature that's NOT been tested. And that is no reason to support propaganda. I've read all your posts and they all come down to "I am on ABC's side because I refuse nchain". That's very immature position to make.

People are criticizing ABC for their contentious plan and your argument is "hey nchain is evil, so I'm siding with ABC". That's totally irrelevant and propagandist.

Rawpool and Coingeek now stands for 50% of the hashrate. by NeVroe in btc

[–]Twoehy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hashrate is literally the only skin anyone can have in the game. Hashrate represents real money that real people are spending to maintain the network. You could make this argument about any miner of BTC or BCH. No single mining pool should have enough hashrate to decide anything, but this is exactly how the system was designed. Miners try to gauge what protocol implementation is best for them, which is a combination of technical realities, economic incentives, and user support, and the fork with the most miner support wins.

You asked what makes Rawpool the right people, and the answer is that anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is and mine is the right person to decide this. You can do the same if you want, that's what decentralized and permissionless means.

I am preparing a Q and A with CSW: Let me know what do you want to ask him by Marlab999New Redditor in btc

[–]etherael 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is not intended to be silly or a troll question, but to explore something I honestly suspect he may be constantly falling victim to on his side based on his background and environment.

Why do you always choose the maverick, combative approach to communication?

Even when you are expressly exploring something that you don't have a perfect handle on, you still adopt the mantle of someone who is coming down from on high to educate the poor unfortunates who are not as enlightened as you and need a clip in the ear to get them in line. The best example of this I've ever seen was the situation with the proof of burn addresses backing wormhole and counterparty; you didn't understand that the last six characters of the addresses were necessarily deterministic checksums based on the prior content of the addresses, even when subtle attention was drawn to this, you silently let it blackhole without correcting yourself or noting the implication of what you were saying.

In my experience, this combative personality is symptomatic of an environment in which you have constantly had to struggle with people who are honestly not capable of understanding your ideas and insights, and are in turn trying to steamroll you with what they believe is important, but is in fact not, usually social status or some associated nonsensical window dressing, and the only way you can pull them in line is to trample over them with the facts until they submit. And if you're always right, and never wrong, the simple fact is this approach works.

But at some point in our lives, we come into a situation where our peers are not necessarily just useless cattle parroting truisms that they don't actually understand and trying to engage in social power games. They have their own genuine insights into the subjects under discussion. When you treat those people as if they were useless cattle, it ends up alienating them, and is directly contrary to moving the field forward as well as your standing within it.

I know how you grew up, I know the kind of society that you dealt with, and I know how it's the perfect breeding ground for the aforementioned attitude. But that realm isn't the high level cryptocurrency community.

I humbly submit that you consider moving past this, in order to genuinely share the unique and valuable insights that you have proven you have, rather than providing ammunition for those who would seek to engage in character assassination against you and sideline those points which are inconvenient to their sometimes objectionable goals.

Today, increasing the block size limit beyond 32mb won't help scale Bitcoin Cash, and I think the stress test proved it. Here's why. by ChronosCryptoChronosCrypto - Bitcoin Vlogger in btc

[–]JonathanSilverblood 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree, and I'm glad that these things are being focused on now.

Wrote a long comment on youtube about it, but I'll re-post it here as well:

This is why I am so impressed with the Gigablock Testnet Initiative and Terab - They are not asking if we can safely raise the blocksize, they're working out how to do it.

Turns out we have quite a bit of tasks to get done, and most seems like just cleanup and restructuring of software, very few protocol changes appears to be needed.

For example, switching from TCP to UDP with forward error correction allows proper use of the cables that crosses the GFoC, and replacing the generic leveldb database with a stateless storage mechanism to take advantage of blockchain immutability rewires the workflow for better parallelization. Propagating blocks with Graphene reduces retransmission of TX data, and with a forced/known canonical ordering (lexical or not) the amount of ordering information is reduced to a minimum as well. Finally, with pre-consensus mechanisms like weak blocks we add the incentives for keeping the mempools converged and we're at the point where it might finally be hardware that is slowing us down.

Add in ASICS for ECDSA signature validation and my estimate is that a regular office desktop should be able to handle at least several thousand transactions per second, and validate incoming block headers within seconds.

Oh, and before I forget - by adding in UTXO commitments you also solve the new-node sync-up issue as it can be fully validating in just a few minutes and can then proceed to download the full history in the background if it has an interest in the historical data.

A (hopefully mathematically neutral) comparison of Lightning network fees to Bitcoin Cash on-chain fees. by CaptainPatent in btc

[–]CaptainPatent[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This is kind of confusing. I assume you mean a weight of 564 WU?

Yes, We're on the same page - When discussing segwit with other people in our Bitcoin Meetup and other outlets, I've found describing segwit versus non-segwit fees in terms that makes the "virtual" output size equivalent is far easier when comparing. If I don't make this simplification, I've found a lot of eyes glaze over.

I didn't want to use the weighted unit calculation alone as a reader could mistakenly think 564WU compares directly to the 226 byte-to-satoshi calculation on BCH which would be unfair to BTC.

Because 141 winds up being the number that you can essentially multiply by sat/byte and by price to get the fee amount which compares directly to a simple transaction of 226 bytes on BCH, I wanted to simplify to this step.

Lightning only requires closing in the case of fraud. What happens if you replace the close with rebalancing?

Part of my post deals with rebalancing and I discuss how that effects the equation. I think that never, ever, ever closing a channel except for fraud may be a bit on the overly optimistic side. I personally don't envision most lightning network nodes surviving generations... I don't envision most lightning nodes even surviving a computer upgrade cycle.

I think there are a number of reasons to close a channel and they don't stop at fraud. I will grant that perhaps when Lightning Network reaches full steam, my own view on the future may be exposed as overly pessimistic and closes may be less plentiful that I envision.

I also think lightning as it stands right now is downright unhospitible to the notion that you could both always pay off-chain and never close a node.

I fully concede that the close ratio should get better with additional adoption, but unless you get to the point that you're passing nodes from generation to generation, I think it's unrealistic to not include a close channel fee at some point along the way.

That sounds pretty reasonable. You seem to see it as a negative/problem, though?

Absolutely not. I've discussed this in other posts but I think 16 transactions per channel is probably at the upper end of reasonable for the time being. I even conceded that my bound could easily be off by a factor of 10 in that same post. I fully respect and understand if you think my upper bound is too pessimistic.

Keep in mind though - the 16-1 ratio assumes that a user will only pay 1 sat/byte to open and close a channel and 16 transactions is break-even if lightning fees truly are negligible. To have a savings of 50%, the same user would have to transact 32 times. For a savings of 75%, we're at 64 transactions.

If the average open/close fee doubles - so does the resulting ratio.

If LN routing begins to cost a non-negligible amount - it also increases the ratio above.

I guess that's why I wanted your vision for where you think fees on these fronts are headed. It may be unfair, so I invite you to correct me, but my impression is that you are, neutral to even fine, with on-chain fees escalating and also think that lightning network will eventually have non-negligible fees also.

I guess I'd really like to know how you think future users would drive prices. I think it would really inform some of the math in this post.

This assumes the current pattern. But with everyone using Lightning, there isn't necessarily going to be the same patterns.

I agree - the post is done with respect to current usage and adaptation metrics. I discuss how unfair it would be to assume that every open/close costs $50 by placing all open/closes in December of 2017. Similarly, I don't want to speculate heavily on the future.

I think things will get better in this respect, but admittedly, my perceived levels of improvement may not be quite as optimistic as yours for the long-run.

There are two scenarios here:

Pay the peak fee rate for this; but then you might as well just stick with A? Pay a more economical fee rate, and accept that it may be several hours until it confirms. (You could also open a Lightning channel with the same transaction.)

Option A would be better economically, but it requires sitting and waiting for the first confirm. I don't envision all users at all points-of-sale to be able to do that.

Paying a more economical rate at a point of sale would not allow you to make the purchase as intended though. You would have to use an alternate currency at the time of sale which is what I was avoiding.

Only if spam is included. Nothing seems to suggest actual usage has hit full blocks yet.

Could you talk about what characteristics a spam transaction has? When I look at a weeks worth of mempool data I clearly see a pattern that would coincide with business patterns of the western hemisphere.

It's hard for me to look at a payment network that is being used more heavily during business hours and be convinced that's spam as opposed to people using the network.

I guess if you could shed light on what detection methods you're using to find this spam and what characteristics it has, it may enlighten this topic quite a bit.

You are always in full control. You don't have to route if you don't want to, and you can set the terms of doing so when you do.

If you have both inbound and outbound routes, you can be used as an intermediary and the state of your inbound and outbound channels can change.

I also have not yet seen implementation of a sliding fee based on inbound or outbound states - this could admittedly be an oversight on my part, but I've set up LN nodes on Eclair in windows and LND in Ubuntu.

A sliding fee scale would at least make things better as people would become less likely to use your node as one end nears depletion and more likely to transact the other way.

With that being said, in certain (albeit somewhat rare) circumstances external nodes could still deplete funds on an outbound channel you require for payment.

I don't think it's quite fair to say you are always in control of your channel states, but I'll grant that because these situations should be relatively rare, you will almost always be in control of your channel states.

Or rebalance, without touching the chain.

That's unlikely to occur with sane peering. Given the importance of being able to rebalance, I would expect production-quality Lightning implementations to intentionally create network loops for you when establishing its channels.

Creating loops deals with external peers. The production-quality software you speak of would need to communicate to and convince two external peers that they need to commit an on-chain transaction to complete a loop that isn't even for either one of them.

Given that cost savings comes from limiting the number of on-chain commitments, why would users be okay with paying for channel creation that doesn't even directly concern them?

This would also require greater network load... and I have concerns about the state and efficiency of the Lightning Network as its size grows.

Edit - clarity / minor text fixes.