Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon
Original Poster8 points · 6 hours ago

The 60 extra op codes that Jihan refers to do require a hard fork, so CSW was not accounting them as part of the original bitcoin, and not in favor of them being introduced via a hardfork.. Somehow Jihan, and others twist this to suggest CSW didn't know about them. facepalm

see more
1 point · 2 hours ago

The 60 extra op codes that Jihan refers to do require a hard fork, so CSW was not accounting them as part of the original bitcoin, and not in favor of them being introduced via a hardfork.

Not really an issue. A single one of the available OP codes can be used as prefix and indicate that more OP codes are following.

You can't have a stable currency if devs are going to continuously hard fork in new op codes.

see more

Can be done via soft-fork, but I guess I see your point.

1 point · 2 hours ago

Can you post a link to the source please? Would love to read more about this.

1 point · 3 hours ago

controlled by a private group headed up by bankers that pay the salaries

Most early Bitcoin developers are heavy whales, not in need of external salary.

Original Poster20 points · 22 hours ago

Jonas, if you are reading this, rather than attacking me personally, feel free to refute the evidence and logic I presented here. I know you wont because the logic and evidence is on the side of Bitcoin Cash being Bitcoin.

see more
8 points · 9 hours ago

Roger, I don't agree with personal attacks, but I think most of this is plain propaganda.

  • Electronic cash, low fee, fast payments and reliable payments are based on similar properties and can be combined. If you pay more than the fee threshold, you get into a block. Whether that's Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash. Currently a fee of 4 sat/byte needs to be paid for this, when using Bitcoin. I wouldn't call this expensive for the most secured blockchain in the world.

  • Bitcoin uses a different approach to on-chain scaling than Bitcoin Cash. And even Satoshi mentioned payment channels as way to improve scaling massively.

  • Non-reversible payments (0-conf) are, or are not, a property both of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. They share similar mechanics and there is nothing that makes 0-conf of Bitcoin Cash more secure. RBF is optional and a great tool to make Bitcoin more reliable, in case of full blocks.

  • The claim that Bitcoin has no longer a chain of digital signatures is plainly wrong and misleading.

Agree. Roger is right that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin and wrong that BTC chain is no longer is. Both chains are Bitcoin at the moment. Until witness data will be omitted forever, chain of signatures - part of Bitcoin's description - on BTC chain is preserved. The problem is that possibility exists

see more
2 points · 7 hours ago

Until witness data will be omitted forever, chain of signatures - part of Bitcoin's description - on BTC chain is preserved. The problem is that possibility exists

What about pruning-mode, where only the last blocks are kept, which already exists? What if all users and miners only use prune-mode and lose the beginning of the history? Wouldn't that be exactly the same?

I don't buy this argument, because the possibility exists already for a long time. Bitcoin works, even in this case, because the whole history is committed in every block, in form of a hash-reference to an earlier block. And SW doesn't change that in any way.

6 points · 9 hours ago

I don't mind, if they use "Bitcoin Cash" as name, as done by Bitcoin Gold and other forks as well, as long as they don't attempt to claim "to be the one true Bitcoin" and then resent to propaganda.

2 points · 1 day ago

So it didn't fail.

see more
-4 points · 1 day ago

Wait, I thought they do it do make money from fees? Which one is it? Make money from fees or have an altcoin economy?

Original Poster1 point · 1 day ago

CLA 45 AMG. Should be the 2016 or 17 one.

see more
1 point · 1 day ago

How do you tell it's an 45 AMG and not a regular CLA without model plate?

Original Poster2 points · 4 days ago

u/dexx7 if we had 1 MB op-return capacity, just out of curiosity, would that be helpful in other ways apart from fitting more data with a single Tx? Would that allow e.g. richer scripting (I'm guessing yes because one could fit a single bigger smart contract with more routines etc)?

see more
2 points · 3 days ago

That's a good question! For Omni we usually need just a tiny bit of data and the only transactions that need more than a few bytes are those for the creation of tokens, because they include the name, maybe a description and and URL in the payload.

However, a large size can be useful, when combining multiple transactions in one, e.g. when sending tokens to many receivers at the same time, or having multiple commands in one transaction.

Original Poster1 point · 3 days ago

I'm thinking in simple monetary operations (not crypto kitties), things like, say, a savings smart contract.

The issuer loads up the contract with tethered fiat beforehand, those joining up lock up BCH for the time of savings, the contract pays out the BCH back plus some tethered fiat in proportion to BCH amount locked and time of maturity of that smart contract.

Guaranteed on-chain liquidity control and savings.

This would need a lot of code to be embedded.

see more
1 point · 1 day ago

Interesting idea, I'd love something like this! But to generate interest, someone has to use the invested money from the contract?

"there is nothing that could be conceivably desired that cannot be done within bitcoin"

Depends what is meant by "within bitcoin". There are many things you cannot do directly.

For example, if you want to create a script that does a trustless wager based on the block hash of the previous block, there is no op code for that, or other similar ways of introducing randomness that don't rely on shared secrets which can be cumbersome beyond the most basic constructions (i.e. ChainBet).

If you want to make an agreement with 10 people that they will all get an equal share of revenue from, say, a donation address, there is no way to do that because you cannot create transactions ahead of time without knowing the amounts and utxo.

Some things can be worked around satisfactorily; others cannot.

see more
1 point · 1 day ago

Well, there is ANYONECANPAY, so you can create transactions and later add more inputs.

Its just about 1 ICO that got fined...

see more
1 point · 3 days ago

... which sets a precedent.

4 points · 5 days ago

You say this now and in a few weeks there will be code. What will you say then?

see more
9 points · 5 days ago

It's just a fork of Bitcoin ABC, not a new implementation.

10 points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

EDIT: since OP deleted - thanks Google Cache.

User 'noticething' (Redditor for less than 60 days) wrote:

Further Press Release.

What are the implications of this new "Bitcoin SV" full node with its 128 MB blocksize limit? Sounds as if CoinGeek might have this in use before the November upgrade.

More nodes - generally good. However

Assuming other nodes support the same opcodes and no others (like DATASIGVERIFY) and don't make canonical blocks a rule:

For blocks > 32mb, it has the potential to split the chain and set of nodes. Depending on which side has majority has, it would result in either a SV+BU majority chain > 32mb, or a BU+ABC majority chain <=32mb .

The health implications of a > 32mb chain on the network are a bit fuzzy. Developers are saying it's going into territory where the clients are not yet fully ready. If SV solves these issues, then it may become dominant client - if majority of miners and economic nodes go along with their plans.

The other issues (DATASIGVERIFY, canonical block order) have the potential to split the chain too, if they are mined into blocks by supporting miners. Then the chain splits is along the lines of who supports what.

see more
3 points · 5 days ago

The other issues (DATASIGVERIFY, canonical block order) have the potential to split the chain too

OP_DATASIGVERIFY could be implemented as soft fork.

-12 points · 5 days ago

For some reason I think Cory disclosed it based on nChain advise lol. The timing couldn't have been more perfect.

see more
21 points · 5 days ago

For some reason I think Cory disclosed it based on nChain advise lol. The timing couldn't have been more perfect.

Except that the issue was disclosed at the beginning of the year and a fix was implemented in Bitcoin ABC in April.

1 point · 6 days ago

Haven't read it, but in short, what's wrong with the book?

That and “funds bitcoin devs out of pity” got me all fist to mouth ohhhhh!

see more
1 point · 6 days ago

Who are they funding?

The idea is to go back to the original client and get rid of all the fuckery that has been added over the years.

The original protocol works fine. Attempts to "improve" it are actually attacks. Less dev = better.

see more
1 point · 10 days ago

Oh, this actually exists from a niche group already, based on Bitcoin 0.5.x.

http://thebitcoin.foundation/

This would only be a problem if the miners/pools with the bug continue to get the next block to build on.

The miners that do not use the bugged ABC would see the block as invalid and continue to mine the block they are in rejecting the invalid transactions. After a few good blocks are built the bugged block will be orphaned.

If this happens it would be easy to figure out that there is an issue since suddenly there have been reorgs and more orphan blocks.

see more
2 points · 10 days ago

If this happens it would be easy to figure out that there is an issue since suddenly there have been reorgs and more orphan blocks.

No. There wouldn't be two chains, where clients change between depending on the amount of total work, but two chains, which are not compatible in any way, because one is considered as invalid.

Original Poster1 point · 10 days ago

I am talking about people deliberately crafting tx to take advantage of the exploit.

What you don't seem to acknowledge is the network of nodes starts behaving abnormally. When you add to that fact people have always been advised to wait 6 confirmations (about 1 hour), before considering valuable transactions final what damage do you think an attacker can do? They wouldn't know how any given exchange would react, and any competent exchange would most likely freeze everything until things again were considered settled and normal.

see more
2 points · 10 days ago

always been advised to wait 6 confirmations (about 1 hour)

You know.. this is /r/btc. People don't wait for confirmations, because 0-conf is safe and reliable! /s

Load more comments

10 points · 11 days ago

two people hold commit access to 95% of BTC infrastructure

"There are hundreds of contibuting devs, there is no such thing as "Bitcoin Core"!.

One whitehat dev who had a couple merges into Bitcoin Core solves a bug

"Bitcoin Core did that!"

see more
-1 points · 11 days ago

Where are those quotes from?

who had a couple merges

Yeah, like.. nearly 300.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/theuni

Knowing what we now know, its very likely that whole event was scripted with Amaury being complicit to make us look bad.

see more
15 points · 11 days ago

what we now know

It's been four months, since the issue was fixed, and roughly eight months ago, when the issue was committed.

So who fucked up? Amaury? Would be interesting considering recent events.

see more
2 points · 11 days ago · edited 11 days ago

Would be interesting considering recent events.

The patch, which introduced the issue, was committed in January 2018, as far as I can see. The patch to fix the issue was authored in April 2018, which is already four months ago.

Silly question, but could this bug have been prevented by doing unit-tests, on test-net and main-net?

see more
5 points · 11 days ago

If you have the right tests, yes. But that's the really tricky part.

Load more comments

They should definitely just put ETH on the BCH blockchain if they ever want to scale.

see more
3 points · 11 days ago

How would ETH-on-BCH scale better than ETH-pure?

4 points · 12 days ago

What was the counter-argument to the last bit, namely malleability?

Not in securing the full design using PoW. Anyone can put in money, but Bitcoin is not a PoS system.

The incentive structure is all based on hash power competition over rewards.

see more
2 points · 13 days ago

Well, I'm just countering OP's argument that Blockstream got corrupt due to it's funding.

-5 points · 13 days ago

Except that the Blockstream inventors are very likely sitting on thousands of BTC, so they are more than heavily invested.

9 points · 13 days ago

Cheers /u/MemoryDealers for creating this post by yourself. I appreciate it.

125 points · 14 days ago

Someone has to pick up on the irony that the op is the founder of BCH... and can post in /r/bitcoin... and can't post in his own slack.

see more
11 points · 14 days ago

Haha thanks for highlighting this!

I guess I was mistaken to believe that ABC actually took the initiative to fork Bitcoin to make BCH.

That's the trick! The nefarious group who called themselves ABC got wind of Bitmains contingency plan and decided to frontrun the hardfork so they could gain credibility over the project! Now they want to destroy it. These people are no different than blockstream. Y'all need a reality check.

see more
2 points · 14 days ago

The nefarious group who called themselves ABC got wind of Bitmains contingency plan and decided to frontrun the hardfork so they could gain credibility over the project!

It was my assumption that ABC was exactly what was created by Bitmain.

u/dexX7
Maintainer of Omni Core, the reference client for the Omni Layer, and contributor to a variety of Bitcoin related projects.
Karma
7,732
Cake day
January 21, 2013
Trophy Case (4)
Five-Year Club

Gilding VI

aultruist

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.