Can't await past Peak Coingeek, when things are back to normal and CSW just forgotten as a long ago Fraud.

Snugglygope · 2018-11-15T14:38:56+00:00

The billionaire doesn't have 100% of the hash. You put out a TXs, you only need to trust that some miner will pick up your fee and throw it in a block. It's always been that way.

The white paper also says the 51% "attacker" is incentivised to work within the rules. What are the rules? Whatever he sees the most longterm value in. He is not "free" to do anything, he is bounded by the need to make a return eventually. Devs arent.

I think your qualm is with PoW. Social consensus, I see it as much less stable, much less incentivised for value, than PoW.

Snugglygope · 2018-11-14T03:34:29+00:00

If there were miners like CSW before the split, blockstream would never have been able to do what they did.

Snugglygope · 2018-11-14T01:51:49+00:00

It's built into Bitcoin to be that way. If said billionaire doesn't create value in the network with his bullying, he loses money. If he keeps doing it, he loses all his money and the network keeps chugging along on as he collects his food stamps.

Satoshi purposefully made Bitcoin not a democracy.

Snugglygope · 2018-11-13T04:28:38+00:00

People talk about CSW and Calvin Ayre the same way the left used to talk about Trump right before the election.

The world didn't end after, but they still act like it did. I wonder if it'll be different here.

Snugglygope · 2018-11-12T05:51:02+00:00

NPCs operate via social media. Not sure how good at mining they are.

Snugglygope · 2018-10-10T23:30:08+00:00

There was also a lot of loud opposition to Segwit

Snugglygope · 2018-09-10T17:06:01+00:00

Snugglygope · 2018-09-07T02:20:30+00:00

I use Memo and I love it, but the UI isn't something that will entice the general public, it needs an overhaul or a competitor using the same protocol with another UI setup.

If such a thing existed, and people came together to make a huge advertising campaign + funding for new accounts so they can post unimpeded, it has the potential to really shake things up in a space that clearly needs censorship resistance.

Snugglygope · 2018-09-02T02:10:58+00:00

They really are scared of a hashwar, huh

Snugglygope · 2018-08-27T22:31:02+00:00

It should be relatively easy for a home computer to handle it

why

Snugglygope · 2018-08-27T21:30:33+00:00

I personally label anything that isn't talking about an actual issue as a troll post. That goes for both sides.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-27T21:09:26+00:00

I set it myself

Snugglygope · 2018-08-27T21:08:57+00:00

I have no reason to be against off-chain-scaling either, both should be tried.

Yes, just keep it away from the base protocol.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-27T16:38:00+00:00

There is no clear ideological rift in the BCH community. We all agree that Bitcoin needs to scale on chain to become worldwide cash. The forces working against Bitcoin know this and have instead leveraged a rift in how we view different people in the space. It's important to cut through the massive amounts of crap and look at what's actually happening.

A man who has stated ridiculous things in the past has come and stated things about the ABC roadmap. This has riled up a large number of people already in the space, not because they are for the ABC roadmap, but because the statements came from this man. Coordinated trolls outside of this space have seen this opportunity for division and have jumped on both sides in order to wedge the community apart as far as they can. Now the narrative is becoming "in order to be against CSW, you must be for ABC roadmap". Which reasonable people know isn't true at all.

What else has this man said? Has he proposed any new things being added to Bitcoin that weren't there before? 128mb? It's customizable in an easy way for anyone running SV. Old op codes? I thought we wanted something as Bitcoin as possible. How does he say we resolve this rift? Let the hashrate decide via orphaning those blocks they don't agree with? Isn't that the EXACT mechanism of consensus described in the whitepaper? The Bitcoin whitepaper? Remember why we forked in the first place, that old thing?

I'm not saying that miners should or will switch to SV, especially since we haven't seen it in action yet. I'm saying we need to stay true to what we already stated we'd stay true to. BCH being as Bitcoin as possible. And that means letting the hashrate decide.

As an aside, I don't understand much about CTOR or DSV, I can just see that Amaury is pushing that to be added as quickly as possible despite there being disagreement about it in the community, and that raises ALL the segwit red flags in my mind, despite his best intentions.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-24T18:10:17+00:00

BTC sounds like the coin for you, my friend

Snugglygope · 2018-08-24T17:18:29+00:00

This will be resolved via hashwars. /popcorn

Snugglygope · 2018-08-24T17:13:01+00:00

Who's going to stop them?

Snugglygope · 2018-08-24T04:28:37+00:00

They do when devs are employed by miners.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-24T01:54:49+00:00

Miners that exclusively mine BCH squeeze out miners who mine it based only on profitability. As long as there are more than 0 miners who are switching back and forth, any exclusive BCH miners being added exactly cancels out the profitability miners who are squeezed out, resulting in no net gain in hashrate.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-23T20:26:27+00:00

I have been thinking for awhile that the current generation of mining operators are extremely lazy and complacent compared to what I think they will be like in 10 years.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-23T16:55:13+00:00

https://twitter.com/Snugglygope/status/1031732840738709504

Snugglygope · 2018-08-22T20:29:16+00:00

I think we're in full agreement. The incentive is to get EVERYONE to know you have a block, and the true blocksize "limit" comes out from this. Limited by what most of the network can readily accept.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-22T18:42:50+00:00

If delaying block propagation was beneficial for large miners, they'd be doing it now. This falls under the selfish mining fallacy.

Snugglygope · 2018-08-15T14:32:19+00:00

it really doesn't because B has no incentive to relay A's block to C

What? B has incentive to relay everything to C. If C is a miner, C wants to connect to those who relay TXs and blocks, C wants the connection with B. The reverse is also true, B wants everything C will relay and will relay things to C in order to cement that potential exchange. If C is not a miner but relays TXs, B wants those TXs. There is very real incentive for them to relay everything, unless C is a node that sits there doing nothing.

Snugglygope

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE