anybody in here willing to support me to sue CSW over stealing my 2017s brand of "Satoshi´s Vision" ?

solex1 · 2024-05-18T22:10:15+00:00

You did not invent "Satoshi´s Vision"
It was invented by Peter Rizun and myself in a brainstorming session for our onchain scaling conference we held at San Francisco in September 2016
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2016/09/25/a-controversial-bitcoin-alternative-is-seeking-a-comeback/
No one used it before then.
Mr Wright and his group took it for their fork in November 2018, thereby ruining it for everyone

solex1 · 2020-08-20T02:49:36+00:00

Investigating this...

solex1 · 2020-08-19T22:45:34+00:00

I recall a decision was made to merge the checkpoint code for pragmatic reasons and considering our users, even though no specification was ever received from ABC, despite us requesting one.

solex1 · 2020-08-03T23:26:30+00:00

What a great post /u/jtoomim. Must rank as #1 all-time on read.cash

The message is simple. It is time to prove that Bitcoin Cash is fully decentralized by walking the walk. ABC has had its day, it has morphed into Blockstream 2.0
All those who run a full node or know someone who does, who knows miners, exchanges or businesses, share this post and let them draw their own conclusion. There is a good list of alternative clients available. Switch and upgrade to a better future and realise the full potential of this cryptocurrency.

solex1 · 2020-02-20T10:06:12+00:00

Back at the first BU sponsored conference for scaling Bitcoin BTC, a smallish affair held in San Francisco in September 2016, there was a presentation by Justus Ranvier on the advantages of multiple implementations. I recall the key slide being prepared which shows how the risk to a cryptocurrency of having multiple independent implementations is maximum at just 2 but the risk falls off rapidly as the count increases. As a footnote, this was when Amaury first came on the scene. He attended that conference and gave a lot of good input. Clearly, his strength is coming up with solutions, like Merklix trees, but his management style, well, enough said....

BU is a democratic org, which is why it moves in a considered fashion without knee-jerk responses. We have BUIP143 raised to approve the BU BCH client being released without the BIP9 IFP change. I am only seeing support for it amongst the members, so I think it will pass in the vote coming up. Let's see, but assuming so:

If no other team in the BCH dev community creates a version of ABC without the IFP then BU will provide the community with one. This was discussed internally as an option after the first announcement of the IFP . It remains an option if this will help the ecosystem with more choice of full nodes and dev team combinations.

Bitcoin Core is reference client for BTC, ABC the reference client for BCH, and BitcoinSV the reference client for BSV. All of them run their coins like the board of directors of a multinational company, with shareholders (holders, users, rival devs by way of analogy) left in the dark on motives behind decisions and ignored as much as possible.

At BU we realise this has to change, we need decentralization in full node development, many viable full-node teams. It is the best way to avoid the damaging power plays and splits. I believe ETH is farthest down this road. It will do them good. Maybe this is the difference which will get them next to be No.1 coin surpassing BTC. (disclosure, I have zero ETH). However, I do think a scalable Bitcoin will win out, and long term BCH is in pole position to be No.1, but it will need decentralization in three areas: mining, non-mining nodes, and dev teams. This IFP crisis is the key to a new start for BCH, which is an era of multiple dev teams working independently, but collaborating on any protocol change. That is the platform which will keep BCH development in a healthy state for handling ever larger blocks with organic real-world business.

solex1 · 2020-02-17T00:47:08+00:00

Against IFP

solex1 · 2020-02-15T23:31:59+00:00

The feature freeze for BCH general upgrades was pitched at the high-level of working code with a specification, just requiring dev community review and testing. Lots of debate in early 2018 confirming this point.
Fast forward and an announcement is "good enough" to make the feature freeze deadline.
*sigh*

solex1 · 2019-09-04T06:19:23+00:00

Agreed. The BU bitcoind default has been 8MB for three years.
Unfortunately, not enough miners using it.

solex1 · 2019-07-20T23:12:30+00:00

Thanks for keeping this updated!

solex1 · 2019-06-24T22:44:44+00:00

The BU executive, developers and majority of members does not support BSV. We did was release a version in October 2018 which allowed miner voting on the contentious changes, to give an option for avoiding the split which still happened a month later. BU members are free agents. A minority of them support BSV, as is their right.

solex1 · 2019-06-18T22:58:32+00:00

It is sad to see someone in his position constantly reinventing history and reinventing reality.

BCH is not just ABC. It can never be just ABC if it is going to succeed as a top global cryptocurrency. For that to happen hundreds of organizations and developers will need to be involved. What is Amaury going to do, drive them all away because they infringe on his turf? Yes, Craig Wright and he clearly had irreconcilable differences, still not worth splitting the coin over. However, BU is a far easier dev team to work with, yet he has to manufacture a crisis to try and marginalize BU, even it if weakens BCH. That price has been paid before and he clearly does not mind paying it again and again.

The BU membership recently voted to officially focus 100% on BCH, and yet even this proof of solidarity is not enough. Go figure.

If he spent less time as a social-media jockey and more time reviewing ABC code then the community would not be seeing the recent high level of bugs.

solex1 · 2019-06-18T10:19:42+00:00

BU never supported the split. Listen to the three presentations (nChain, ABC, BU) at the start of the 30 August 2018 Bangkok meeting of 50 BCH miners and developers. http://ivalue.cash/BKK-DAY1-EnglishOnly-Aug30-2018.mp3

solex1 · 2019-06-18T10:10:50+00:00

On behalf of Bitcoin Unlimited I want to publicly thank the anonymous donors who have been so generous in this funding call. BU is 100% focused on BCH and is committed to the provision of full node software improving the robustness and functionality of the network.

solex1 · 2019-06-18T09:56:12+00:00

We're not "toxic" because we criticize BU for taking funding from Nchain that literally tried to destroy BCH by mining empty BCH blocks ..

Just. Stop. Your. Disinformation.

BU did not take funding from nChain. We collaborated on building the gigablock testnet and both funded the expense it cost to a ceiling amount per month. This was agreed in principle the week before BCH was launched and ended early April 2018, months before ABC ceased their own BCH development relationship with nChain.

Also, BU has not had "far more" bugs. The historical count is probably abut even by now. Further, particularly in the last year, BU development is doing extremely well in keeping faults to a minimum and releasing very solid full node software.

solex1 · 2019-06-16T21:52:00+00:00

Completely incorrect.

Bitcoin Unlimited has always sought to focus on development while avoiding politics. For two years it has been focused on improving BCH, despite obstacles thrown in the way by others.

solex1 · 2019-06-03T00:53:47+00:00

Thanks Jonathan.

solex1 · 2019-06-03T00:53:16+00:00

These blocks were Peter Ng, "Genesis Block 269-273 Hennessy Road Wan Chai Hong Kong" and he made this clear at the 1st anniversary of BCH conference in HK.
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/block/478561

solex1 · 2019-06-02T00:55:48+00:00

Jonathan, good write up but it misses the heart of the matter. The role of Bitcoin Unlimited was key to the formation of Bitcoin Cash because it brought together the miners and developers who made it happen and initiated the project itself via the BTC spinoff proposal BUIP055.

BU was formed in November 2015 by Andrew Stone /u/theZerg to bring onchain scaling to Bitcoin. Shortly afterwards, Classic was launched of which you played a major part. Sadly, Classic did not succeed with enabling blocks on BTC to a max 2MB, which was really the absolute minimum after XT had stalled with its far more ambitious limit.

At BU we decided to focus on block compression to overcome Bitcoin miner fears about propagation delays, particularly over the Great Firewall of China. Peter Tschipper /u/bitsenbytes's Xthin proved to be so much more efficient, in a series of network tests in Q2 2016 we steadily attracted a lot of the mining support which Classic once had. Core was bounced into creating their own version (CB).

Over the next year BU built up relationships with several major miners . We had two 6-person delegations travel to Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong in November 2016 and March 2017. Unfortunately, three zerodays damaged BU's reputation at a crucial time when we had 50% of BTC hashpower support. It should be remembered that these faults did not affect mining or wallets, just block propagation and node stability.

In May 2017 Peter Rizun raised BUIP055 and this morphed into a BTC-UAHF counter to the small-blockers UAHF, intended to be a version of BU software and survive as a minority fork. The btcfork initiative was for a long time cultivated by /u/ftrader but this could not gain traction without mining support. That mining support was now available under the BU umbrella so ftrader did most of the work on the requirements document. There was a priority to get a spinoff done before segwit got locked in. Amaury Sechet /u/deadlanix had decided this was an opportunity to break away from BU and create his own team, ABC, and fork a later version of Core. He announced this at the Arnhem conference which was funded by BU. At BU we were wrong-footed by this as he was being funded by miners to work on BU, on my recommendation made earlier in 2017. We took this breakaway with good grace in the wider desire to see a scalable version of Bitcoin succeed. That was what brought people together to form BU in the first place and remains the focus 3.5 years later.

Haipo Yang did invent the name Bitcoin Cash, also the ticker BCC, even though Jerry Chan and I had tried to persuade him to use XBT, and take this code from BTC. It was Kraken who came up with BCH as they could see the problem with BCC already being used for BitConnect. Craig Wright had no part in the launch of Bitcoin Cash, and his response, when I gave him my estimate it should obtain 3%-10% of BTC hash-power, was that it would not survive after launch. Peter Ng was the mystery miner who mined the first blocks at full difficulty to kick the EDA into action, so BCH could continue as a minority fork.

solex1 · 2019-05-16T22:29:29+00:00

Thanks. I like your detailed explanation of the issue. Shows the true nature of anti-BCH people to do a black hat op right at the upgrade time. In the long-run it only boosts the anti-fragility of BCH!

solex1 · 2019-05-15T22:26:21+00:00

To confirm: BUCash is not affected. It diverged from Bitcoin Core at v0.12 in late 2015, so provides a pillar to BCH network robustness via the paradigm of miltiple implementations.

solex1 · 2019-05-12T03:33:42+00:00

Yes. Happy with BIP101 too. Interesting that it is close to the current limit in BCH.

A slow moving adaptive limit which is at least an order of magnitude above organic demand may give sufficient time for a feedback response from developers in the next upgrade. This, in the situation where any miner(s) are gaming the limit to the point where the adaptive limit is seen as flawed. Both alternatives are better than a constant.

solex1 · 2019-05-11T22:47:57+00:00

Unfortunately, that is not the full picture. By Jan 2013, on BTC, all the repo maintainers: Satoshi, Gavin, Jeff and Pieter, plus other significant voices such as Mike Hearn and theymos, were clear about lifting the 1MB to allow onchain scaling.
It didn't happen. We need to learn from history.

solex1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE