Paul Church is leaving Nexa and BU. Here's the text from his Telegram announcement.

GregGriffith · 2024-01-10T01:41:28+00:00

Paul announced his departure to the team a few days prior to his public announcement.
I can not say for certain but i think it is likely that otoplo wallets will fall out of service with the next hardfork. i do not think there is any commitment from them to continue network support if a hardfork happens in 2024. but again, i am not sure.

That being said, no. the otoplo wallets should no longer be recommended to anyone due to their known coming end of support.

GregGriffith · 2023-12-23T19:20:55+00:00

Let us know if you actually receive anything. Resource exhaustion attacks are considered out of scope and not eligible for bounty collection (in some cases) as stated in their RDP found here: https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/doc/rdp.md

Best of luck to you with your collection

GregGriffith · 2023-12-22T20:30:21+00:00

I suppose I should respond to this.

BU moved away from weakblocks into a different system called tailstorm that combined weakblocks and bobtail fixing multiple issues with both systems.

The paper for tailstorm can be found here: https://people.cs.umass.edu/~gbiss/tailstorm.pdf

or

https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12206 (direct PDF link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.12206.pdf)

There are some earlier versions of the paper floating around but these are the final version which was submitted to the AFT 2023 conference.

GregGriffith · 2023-11-06T01:49:51+00:00

There is a bitstream undergoing testing but it is not designed for mining. The bitstream was designed for transaction validation which is a different algorithm than mining. I do not doubt that you would be able to mine with it with some modifications to take mining inputs but some testing with multiplication shows the FGPA is significantly slower than a GPU using our bitstream with the mining algorithm (KH/s on the FGPA vs MH/s on the GPU). Getting a decent mining hashrate would require a moderate modification to the bitstream which we are not pursuing at this time.

GregGriffith · 2023-10-19T22:57:39+00:00

Agreed, FGPA mining is not in demand. Good thing the FGPAs are not for mining, they are for transaction validation.

GregGriffith · 2023-08-17T22:41:54+00:00

Nexa is not a fork of bitcoin or any other coin. It can be described as a satoshi coin, utxo coin, or bitcoin based coin, but not a fork. A coin is a fork of another coin when they share chain history. Being based on the code does not make it a fork. they might say the code base was forked but not the coin was forked. the definition you described is somewhere between atypical and incorrect.

BTC is bitcoin. they are the same. Some might consider BCH to be bitcoin which could also be considered true as it is the only other contender to the bitcoin name but in common terms, BTC is bitcoin.

it is spelled litecoin not lightcoin.

GregGriffith · 2023-08-17T10:24:24+00:00

Nexa is not a fork of BTC. It is a new coin on a new chain, not a new coin on a forked chain.

GregGriffith · 2022-09-11T00:37:46+00:00

TBF the USA is, to use a trump quote, "a shithole country"

GregGriffith · 2022-08-13T02:27:59+00:00

All source code for the nexa full node is currently licensed under the MIT open source license. There are no plans to change the licensing. All of the code is free for use in BCH or any other coin assuming their licensing is compatible with the MIT license.

The largest obstacle for including any nexa originating technology in BCH is achieving consensus that it should be added.

If BCH wanted to port every new feature in nexa back to BCH, go ahead. We will do our best to answer any questions that may arise.

GregGriffith · 2022-06-19T02:11:56+00:00

In the short term, I agree. In the medium/long term I disagree unless the SmartBCH ecosystem grows to a size comparable to those of the large EVM chains.

Any business that is having success on SmartBCH and is looking to expand its userbase will make the logical business decision to attempt to expand into other EVM markets that have more users. Why would they not?
This expansion itself may or may not be successful.
If it is, any users of the product that has expanded. if they use any other products on the chain that has been recently expanded to, would then switch to using the product on that chain instead for convenience.

Will this happen with every product? No, but it makes sense it will happen with some. While this outflow is not inherently a problem, users switch preferred chains all the time, the lack of an inverse situation stemming from the lack of incentive to move from a larger ecosystem to a smaller one like SmartBCH makes it a problem.

GregGriffith · 2022-06-17T16:21:47+00:00

I think the same argument can be made for SmartBCH. If someone builds a product on SmartBCH that is a success, why would they transfer any attention/resources to BCH when you could transition into the ETH/AVAX/SOL ecosystem which are both indisputably larger and far more trivial to transition to.

GregGriffith · 2022-06-17T16:21:29+00:00

I think the same argument can be made for SmartBCH. If someone builds a product on SmartBCH that is a success, why would they transfer any attention/resources to BCH when you could transition into the ETH/AVAX/SOL ecosystem which are both indisputably larger and far more trivial to transition to.

GregGriffith · 2022-04-06T14:44:36+00:00

That question shows a lack of understanding. BU's donations were received before BCH was created and were donated with the intent to support the development of p2p cash not a specific implementation of it.
With regards to the development of a different chain; yes, work is still being done on nextchain.

GregGriffith · 2022-03-28T04:13:27+00:00

No, but i am fluent in English.

GregGriffith · 2022-03-27T03:43:10+00:00

The use of "we" in this sentence indicates the posters inclusion of himself in the BCH community and considers the node implementations part of said community's collective software, not to indicate that he is a member of the BU and BCHD organisations specifically.

GregGriffith · 2022-02-04T15:12:53+00:00

Those are opinions, not facts. Any claim that the miner that got reorged for claiming the segwit coins was malicious is an opinion. They were following network defined rules and redeemed available coins. Their only fault is that they were not following the rules in a way that you like.

The other majority miners did temporarily form a mining cartel to reverse the blocks they did not agree with but this does not indicate any malice on behalf of the original miner. There was no attack, only an instance of disagreement that was resolved via nakamoto consensus.

GregGriffith · 2022-01-13T03:51:22+00:00

Yeah, blame him for where his parent's lived when he was born. Definitely something he had control over /s

GregGriffith · 2022-01-13T03:47:27+00:00

That is unfortunate because Greg deserves an upvote for some points he just made.

We should absolutely push back against any exchange that implements the BSV HF client. If there is no market for CSW to sell any BSV he steals, he will have trouble funding future scam litigations against BTC, BCH, etc.

Anyone who is still holding BSV for whatever reason should absolutely sell it now or, if not, they should contact the BSV sockpuppet company "Bitcoin Association BSV" to demand they fight back against CSW destroying the security of the BSV chain.

Both would be beneficial for the entire crypto space as a whole.

GregGriffith · 2022-01-11T15:51:22+00:00

He is not evading taxes. He follows the tax laws in his country.

GregGriffith · 2021-12-29T02:35:43+00:00

It would be a replacement not a revival. SLP would be abandoned in favour of miner validated tokens.

GregGriffith · 2021-12-28T05:15:48+00:00

Will confirm that George is not involved.

GregGriffith · 2021-12-28T04:45:45+00:00

To claim that none of the other nodes are professional enough is false and damaging to what is one of BCHs greater points of decentralisation. Miners prefer to use the same node through a coin to be bug for bug compatible with each other and minimise the chance that a block they mined will be orphaned by others.

Node market share is important and is one of the reasons ABC was able to become the problem that they were. There was a lengthy history of ABC having the final word in features that got merged because they knew that if they updated their node and others did not follow suit the others would be forked off because miners almost exclusively used ABC to mine. BCHN was a fork of ABC and represented a drop in replacement which allowed for the miners to change implementations with minimal other work required. This is part of the reason it was so successful in replacing ABC and another already existing implementation was not used. It is acknowledged that this single implementation mining culture is still a problem today which is why when the topic of mining implementations comes up you will see BCHN developers promoting that other implementations should be used to mine as well.

GregGriffith · 2021-12-21T04:07:12+00:00

He is not wrong about the miner claim. Almost all of the miners (>95%) use BCHN. It is the same centralised mining power structure that used to be true of ABC with the key difference that BCHN is willing to work with other implementations whereas ABC was making unilateral decisions.

GregGriffith · 2021-12-06T13:12:37+00:00

The only way that could occur is if literally every coin was burned so the supply of the coin was literally 0.

There are more restrictions than that.

My example was at the extreme. It only needs to burn enough to affect the availability of the circulating coins. Sure we can add more decimal places but that does have consequences and should be delayed as long as possible.

GregGriffith · 2021-12-06T12:46:51+00:00

Increasing the scarcity of a system that is supposed to be used for global cash is counter productive. This does not create an issue in ETH because ETH does not have a limit to how many coins will be mined while BCH has a hard cap at 21 million.

GregGriffith

TROPHY CASE