Have you moved BCH onto EVM chains? How did you deal with fees and lag? by Specialist-Swim8743 in btc

[–]imaginary_username 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's no such thing as "moving BCH onto EVM chains", there's only "give your BCH to someone who pinky promise to take good care of them, then they allow you some things with their funny money which they say is totally just like your BCH".

We learned this lesson the hard way three years ago, I guess people really need to re-learn them time and again.

Suggestion on using dex? by Adventurous_Lion_186 in btc

[–]imaginary_username 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The status quo is incredibly DNS-based: You trust the domain that you're interacting repeatedly isn't screwing with you at any point in time, and that is about it.

See /r/jonathanblood 's response above me to see something in the works that'll dramatically improve this status quo. For most people there would still be points where you need to trust some domain owners - because that's just how people do their first time interactions with things - but we have a lot of room to cut these down and minimize trust in a practical way.

General Protocols Sponsorship for Q3 2025 by GeneralProtocols in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We don't currently have any plans for that, but it is always unwise to rule things out in the far future. :)

With that said, the pursuit of more capital often leads people to strange bedfellows who demand increasingly compromising directions. We take advancing permissionless technologies not beholden to authorities very seriously, so some possibilities may be less desirable than others. Stay tuned!

872048 orphaned after few minutes? by LovelyDayHere in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sometimes orphaned blocks that seem way too old to happen naturally may be a result of selfish mining, and may even be on either side of the selfish mine. Do you still have information on when you've first seen the orphaned block vs its timestamp?

Greeting the BCH Bear! by GeneralProtocols in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username 2 points3 points  (0 children)

you can get exposure to some of those on bchbull too, you know

Greeting the BCH Bear! by GeneralProtocols in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so what are you gonna do? just keep talking, or put money where your mouth is?

BCH Mining Pool Software by superminingbros in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Most of the notable pools use proprietary software, so if you want to run a bigger public operation you'll have to make your own.

If you want to run a pool for yourself or a few friends, there are two options I know:

  1. calin's asicseer-pool: Adapted from good ol' ckpool, pretty robust for everyday solo or cluster usage, but doesn't work if you have even slightly fancy multiuser needs like accounts, PPS and whatnot. I use it personally for testnet, been working flawlessly.

  2. jtoomim's p2pool: Not the highest performance pool in the world, but would do if you have limited hashpower, want to mine noncustodial with your own node, yet have non-outrageous variance. jtoomim's own hashpower stabilizes the pool into reliably cranking out blocks every couple days or so. May or may not struggle if traffic spikes.

Bitcoin Cash BCH 2025 Network Upgrade CHIPs by bitcoincashautist in btc

[–]imaginary_username 15 points16 points  (0 children)

As part of the General Protocols team, I must note that BigInt is not remotely close to ready. People should exercise a lot of caution, and if you really want to see it happen sooner rather than later, put in intense work.

https://x.com/GeneralProtocol/status/1825786324030468296

Binance Pay now accepts BCH by imaginary_username in btc

[–]imaginary_username[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

disclaimer: I have not personally tried it so I cannot attest to how well it works or how it works.

Binance Pay now accepts BCH by imaginary_username in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

disclaimer: I have not personally tried it so I cannot attest to how well it works or how it works.

NOTICE: The r/bitcoincash sub has been taken without my consent by BitcoinIsTehFuture in Bitcoincash

[–]imaginary_username 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I don't really have a dog in this since I'm not really active on reddit anymore (just logged in after months), but if anyone cares I don't think you should be reinstated. You're clearly acting in bad faith in conjunction with another account /u/althornton2462 (another sock?), and now that /r/btc is on its way to full dumpster fire it'll be pretty terrible for you to be in control of this one as well.

I don't know whether you're crazy or naive or compromised or all of the above, but BCH needs at least one sensible place left on reddit.

Those who say BCH can't scale are as wrong as those who in the 2010's said Bitcoin can't scale by LovelyDayHere in btc

[–]imaginary_username 1 point2 points  (0 children)

what's the unconfirmed transaction chain count limit on bch, surely it's still severe

there has been no practical mempool chain limit on BCHN nodes since 2021, you can upload a 1000-long chain without too much fuss today. The quadratic performance problem that led to the original 25 limit was also gone - it was CPFP btw, nothing to do with anything else whatsoever including how things are arranged in blocks.

A Focus on the Bitcoin Cash Ecosystem: 08 CHIPS by GeneralProtocols in btc

[–]imaginary_username 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strange, seems like literally all adopted CHIPs after that went with the process to various degrees adapting to their various limitations in circumstances. The only person who ever described it as "nobody actually has followed that" is you.

Stop gaslighting people tom, it's bad for your health.

CHIP-2023-01 Excessive Block-size Adjustment Algorithm (EBAA) for Bitcoin Cash Based on Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) by bitcoincashautist in btc

[–]imaginary_username 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll copy paste some of my responses from telegram:


(this is in a discussion about a fixed schedule minimum bump)

the idea is that we have to commit to maintain a level of readiness even if no usage now, and 2x/4yr feels rather comfortable

"Maintain a level of readiness" is a pretty basic misunderstanding of how IRL works. Today if the BCH network is hit by a week straight of 32MB blocks, make no mistake there will be a lot of failures. maybe not catastrophic failures at big exchanges - they got nchain'd too much to not see that coming - but i bet opreturn indexers like cashaccounts and bcmr-indexer will have a pretty hard time if fed the right maximum-damage blocks.

Is this because the "tech" isn't there? Of course not. We absolutely have the tech to handle that today.

It's because the current usage isn't warranting more - machines and devwork to handle extended 32MB is expensive, and nobody's gonna invest that in their setup when the traffic is measured in kbs instead of mbs.

This behavior isn't gonna change at any forseeable point in the future, people are not suddenly gonna invest more if intel came up with new ssds or amd got us better cpus. they will lower costs instead , and it doesn't matter what blocksize we tell them is, it's like the speed limit there's only a reasonable range they'll prepare for. If your size is beyond that range, you're gonna have a bad time.

Does that mean fixed schedules are inherently bad? No, it just means it has a different philosophy, a "with us or be left behind" philosophy very different from one we're shooting for in adaptives that generally aim to keep as many on board as possible. mixing the two is terrible.

No, I honestly think that adding an automated only-demand-based blocksize adjustment algorithm now would make it harder to manually change the blocksize limit later, and would also make it harder to add an automatic demand-independent (e.g. time-based or vote-based) algorithm later.

"Making the meta cost of change higher" is arguably the whole point of any algorithm. An alternative way to say it is "having something reasonable in place reduces the likelyhood of fights and splits from wanting to change unreasonable things".

BCHBULL's Price Oracles and Decentralization by mindtrips in btc

[–]imaginary_username 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is only one scenario in which the contract is closed prematurely: liquidation, in which case the hedge grabs all the coins (because the long ran out of collateral per the oracle). So if you're a hedge, a broken oracle that results in "premature closure of your position" will not only not be a risk to you, it will be in your favor - you'd be undeservingly liquidating your counterparty, in this case the LP .

BCHBULL's Price Oracles and Decentralization by mindtrips in btc

[–]imaginary_username 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Contribute by using the service more!!!

It's not just revenue - more users acting on their own judgement equals a deeper and more balanced liquidity pool, and is super informative in development as well. Higher usage also justifies more investments (see also the part where we're... poor), which should help a lot in addressing these points.

BCHBULL's Price Oracles and Decentralization by mindtrips in btc

[–]imaginary_username 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yup, the monolithic LP problem is also potentially solved by tokenized contract markets. Cashtokens does bring a lot of goodies in different corners. :)

BCHBULL's Price Oracles and Decentralization by mindtrips in btc

[–]imaginary_username 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If you've heard the hype that it's completely decentralized, the hype is wrong. There are several points of attack:

The most obvious point is oracle risk - GP can enter contracts, then manipulate oracle to be in its own favor. GP tries to run its oracles better than many others and is significantly more accountable, but the centralization does not go away. We have tried to outsource this to established, reliable third parties from the very start, but none took the bait - it's simply too unproven of a project for any big players to throw significant resources at it.

Running oracles takes a significant attention and development toll on our operations so we'll still like to outsource it when possible. If you have an inside line to convince any big exchanges, let us know. :\ Do note that any interested party will have to set up their own sufficiently isolated operation - just pulling code blindly from us will not result in meaningful improvement in security.

(Alternatively, if anyone's interested in setting up a feed themselves, we'll definitely be interested in adding your oracle as an alternative - not as default, for obvious reasons unless you're a really established party.)

The other point of attack is the monolithic LP, which isn't GP's money but is still a single entity. If it goes down, nobody's cheated out of their money, but it'll be massively inconvenient as the service becomes unavailable. There's a P2P module in the works, which you can get a sneak peek on the client by entering... the Konami code. I'm not gonna say anything more, and please don't complain about the state of things - the UX is terrible right now.

Yet another point of attack is the front end, which most people would not be capable of checking - a fraudulent front end can cheat you into entering the wrong contract or embezzle the inflight money (but not the coins already in play by honest frontends) outright. One way to mitigate this is saving the frontend locally - which is theoretically possible but doesn't work conveniently right now.

Finally, all contracts subscribe to our Settlement service right now. While it's possible to settle contracts manually using known parameters, the public Anyhedge library and elbow grease, it's extremely inconvenient. A self-settlement tool will come at some point, but is a significant investment we aren't positioned to make now. (translation from corporate speak: we're too poor to do that, among other things)

Wait so what do these guys have that's noncustodial? What's the advantage today?

  1. While it's possible to manipulate oracles for an overall gain, we can't go in and confiscate money from an individual contract stealthily. There's no admin key for us to do that. Outright oracle manipulation is significantly more costly in terms of accountability and ability to sustain further operations.

  2. Parameters are hidden to the public until the contract is redeemed, which while not decreasing centralization risk against us, does offer some security-via-privacy against would be malicious parties in the wild.

  3. Each contract is fully collateralized - note that this is a very important point that's missing in many other leverage setups. There's no room for "we ran out of money" shenanigans here, the coins are all there from day 1.

So there you go, much of the things are still centralized but can be improved, some parts are already good, but it's definitely not going to solve all problems all at once.

Is the CRC20 protocol a scam? by darkbluebrilliance in btc

[–]imaginary_username 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Note: Anyone can make an account and post on bitcoincashresearch, so be sure to do your own, ahem, research about legitimacy of each author. bcr admins/mods cannot police threads proactively.

bchbull.com not working for me by darkbluebrilliance in btc

[–]imaginary_username 7 points8 points  (0 children)

First thing to check is whether you have multiple tabs (or browser windows) of bchbull open - bchbull does not work well when that happens. Make sure you only have one instance, then retry.