@Cain
edited
more from that month
The crazy ex-girlfriend.
***Friday, November 27th, 2020, 12 days after the fork*** The BCHA chain has been under "attack" since pretty much its inception. There's a crazy unknown miner burning his money to prevent BCHA from functioning as intended. For a brief period, ViaBTC found some blocks and coins were able to move, but the unknown miner has now resorted to orphaning and preventing any transactions other than those that include an op_return that says: "There never was a funding problem." Do you realize how crazy this is? Imagine going out with someone for three years and eventually realizing you can't keep going like this so the two of you break up: "Sorry, this just isn't working for me, so I'm ending it and doing my own thing." "Fuck if I care! I don't need you. And don't forget I'm the one ending things, not you! IN FACT MAYBE WITH YOU OUT OF MY LIFE EVERYTHING WILL FINALLY GET BETTER! ALL YOU'VE DONE IS DRAG ME DOWN FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. I CAN'T BELIEVE I LET YOU EVER TAKE ME OUT!!!" "Actually, you're the one that asked me out." "Whatever! I'm better off without you so fuck OOFFFFFF!!!!" You think to yourself, okay, no problem, thank god I'm out. But as soon as you move out and find your own place what happens? You come home one day and there's your ex, sitting in your living room, the walls have been spray-painted in bright red letters with the words voluntarism.dev over and over again. At this point you're like I can't believe this shit. Meanwhile your ex refuses to leave unless you agree to give up everything and start your life from scratch. "But this is all my stuff. I just bought it with my own money. Not only that but I even let you keep everything we bought when we were together." She eyes you and says: "I don't give a fuck. The value you took from me pales in comparison to what it will cost me to ruin your life. I'm old school, I can do this for years. Next time you want to break-up you better leave with nothing but the clothes on your back and start your life as a new person where I never have to see your face again." You shake your head incredulously and think, efffff that. You think that sounds crazy but it's not far from the truth:
This is not the world I'm prepared to live in. All the BCH folks who applaud this behavior, you're a joke. Not to mention the hypocrisy is off the charts. Amaury, for all intents and purposes, created BCH. Even if you counter that there were others involved, the fact that Amaury was a key component, if not the key component, is undeniable. And now you're saying because you disagree with what he wants to do with the project he started, he isn't allowed to fork? And what about those of us who support Bitcoin ABC? Do we not matter because we're not the majority? Or the miners who want to voluntarily hand over 8% of their mining rewards to Bitcoin ABC but you're forcing them not to. Considering BCH is itself a fork of BTC, shares BTC's genesis block, BTC's pow algo, and formed a community of people that branched off the BTC community, it's rich telling ABC to start a new chain with a new genesis block, a new pow ago, and a new community. I refuse to believe that we live in a world where this type of behavior is seen as acceptable. I want everyone in the entire cryptocurrency industry to remember all the people who support this and shame them into realizing that this isn't what cryptocurrencies are all about. It's about building something, and competing honestly, not destroying the work of others. But I guess this is the test, now begins the real experiment Satoshi started.
22 comments
well.. that's one side of the perspective lol .. and what about all the abuse the crazy ex-girlfriend suffered at the hands of this "innocent" dude?? (smh) > I want everyone in the entire cryptocurrency industry to remember all the people who support this and shame them into realizing that this isn't what cryptocurrencies are all about. no one I know is supporting this (including myself), but we ALL know why it's happening .. just because I was never directly abused myself, doesn't mean I won't respect the "actions" taken of those that were abused first I'm hearing of `voluntarism.dev`; tbh this just ain't my kind of drama (way too close to home); I prefer my drama on daytime tv .. but, Amaury clearly (and willfully) burned some fuckin' bridges over the last year; so if you're gonna be fair in your analysis, you can't simply ignore those acts in your writings
Amaury should have hard forked or at least added replay protection. If he had, I think there'd be much less chance this would have happened because his soft fork wouldn't have had any chance of being seen as an attack on BCH. In your crazy ex scenario, what Amaury did is like breaking up, but then constantly following you around and trying to grab the chair away from your new love interests before they can sit at a table with you for a date.
stay on reddit, begone dark being.
I’m happy to have a productive conversation without engaging in ad hominems if you’d like to do that.
You are not deserving of a respectful engagement. You played yourself long ago. You can play victim all you want and act all peaceful now, i dont really give a flying pug. Once a troll, always a troll. once a hypocrite, always a hypocrite.
> And now you're saying because you disagree with what he wants to do with the project he started, he isn't allowed to fork? He is allowed to fork. In fact, he is a free person and is allowed to do whatever he wants to do. He also has to face whatever consequences comes with the actions he takes. If he boldly goes out and says that the IFP will only cost his miners less than 1% and that the vast majority of the cost will actually be born from the rest of the sha256 network, then he is incurring damage to others. Someone on reddit said that your ex-girlfriend analogy fits well if she got your credit card and is taking money from you every 10 minutes. Credit cards don't fit well here since they can easily be frozen to stop said ex-girlfriend, but just like we can say that the fiat money printers debase the fiat currency at a cost to all fiat holders, we can say the same here: the IFP redirects value at the cost of all sha256-miners cost. It stands to reason that those damaged by this act would seek to prevent it. Furthermore, since there is no legal precedent and this is a matter that can't reasonably be expected to be resolved through the nation-state legal frameworks, the actions available to the miners are limited. I am not defending the actions they are taking, I think any hostile act is morally wrong, but I can see how this situation could come to be and while I don't condone the attack itself, I do appreciate and value the sentiment and effect it has for Bitcoin Cash. If there's something I would not want going forward, then that is for the IFP to have been so successful so that we'd encourage copycats.
Define successful. If it works and allows ABC to deliver on the roadmap, isn't that what you'd want?
Succesful in this context would be "able to redirect significant value that would otherwise have gone to sha256 miners".
You didn't answer my other question. Do you not want ABC to deliver on their roadmap?
I have no stake in what ABC does with their software. For the sake of those who do have stake, I would want ABC to deliver on their roadmap. My initial comment has nothing to do with the roadmap though, and is only related to the idea that a successful redirection of value by means of the IFP mechanic would encourage others to do the same, which is destructive to the sha256 miner ecosystem. I want governments and dictators to do GoodThings(tm) more than I want them to not do such, but their printing of money and practical redirection of value is still destructive.
Oh lord, you're sounding like a BTC troll, man. Except instead of calling BCH Bcash, you're going over presenting that ABC will do it with the IFP. Look, the answer there is simply yes. They will deliver if they get their acts right. But the thing is, that "BCH Roadmap" isn't being actually followed right now for the last two updates. The 8% coinbase rule isn't there. The 25 to 50 chain transaction limit is important for scaling but not in the roadmap. Both are forced decisions due to demand that shouldn't be there. EDIT: OP_REVERSEBYTES (More Basic Opcodes) and the ASERT DAA (Faster Block Propagation) are the only ones that even remotely qualify for the roadmap, and even then it's a stretch. Bitcoin ABC itself actually doesn't follow the roadmap. Their 4MB/8MB "limit" prevents blocks to reach high levels, creating a fee market. This, therefore, ruins the "Best Money" roadmap as there are now high fees and a congested chain. It isn't even accurate if you really stick to the letter and consider Bitcoin ABC's "Roadmap" the true BCH roadmap, and these are all pre-November 2020 fork. * The Extensibility option "Token Economy" is live as SLP Tokens. Mistcoin allowed minable SLP tokens and now one of the miners of the token is making a modified version of it to create NFTs. * The Extensibility option "New Transaction Format" is being developed by another node and is being tested/released. * The Scaling option "Faster Block Propagation" has (graphene/other) underneath it. Guess what, Graphene's already in Bitcoin Cash's node system. Bitcoin Unlimited is making Graphene v2 and Jonathan Toomim is creating Blocktorrent, which speeds block propagation, and Xthinner, a protocol which also solves the Scaling option "UTXO Commitment" by compressing blocks. Then, there are these things. * The Usability option "Fractional Satoshis" requires a computational change in getting the transaction fees, which would mean algorithm rewriting for the whole ecosystem and allowance of more decimal points... * The Usability option "Fee Improvements" requires the same thing above. Bitcoin ABC has already "developed" this by the coinbase rule. Maybe we shouldn't let voluntarism.dev say it, yes. But BTC miners have expressed interest in BCH as an alternative if BTC fails. If we treat voluntarism.dev as BTC miners, wouldn't it make more sense then? They're protecting their long-term backup plan, and with Bitcoin ABC's "8% of coinbase to an ABC address" then with prior conversations of "8% may rise to 50% or 95%", then Voluntarism.dev is saying "You should just get 100%, Amaury." Amaury may have been the leader who created Bitcoin Cash but this is a Monero-like situation where the lead was kicked off for malicious actions of the leader. And since it's a Bitcoin name, well, it's newsworthy than Monero. And it's the Nakamoto Consensus at work after BCH managed to stay afloat when Satoshi expected minority chains to disappear.
not to mention that Avalanche will more than likely flip the consensus from PoW to PoS
It would be interesting to read more on the technical side of this event happening, if there are some links, please share
What are you curious about? Some unknown miner is mining empty blocks and preventing anyone else from confirming transactions. They're mining at a loss in order to do so.
Yes, that's what I was interested about. So this miner has a huge hashpower? Maybe that's not one miner, but a group of people, it seems so after reading Voulntarism.dev
It appears to be a group, the cost is estimated at ~$7000 / day. They are now enforcing 100% IFP, rather than 8% IFP - so they are intentionally making the signal costly. As an interesting side-effect, they will soon have mined so many blocks on ABC that they are, according to some, supposed to have a role at the Global Network Council.
If they are enforcing 100% IFP, the money should go to them or to the account set up before (where 8% supposed to go)? Thanks for explanation, I'll keep reading more about this
All 100% goes to the address defined by ABC in their node software.
No, not crazy ex. Just karma.
There is no force involved. Only nastyness and obvious cognitive dissonance and mental incapabilities. I would use other words that fit better, but I have to keep it insult-free. People constantly try to point out that I am 'mean' or 'insulting'. Well, these types of people deserve more than a few insults to shake them up. Where I come from you do not turn the other cheek, when they play these games.
Maybe get angry on the people that convinced you that the miners want it, used phony game theory, and told you to ignore all the signs that they will loose. The chain lost security due to their actions. Your investment is shitty because ABC people did a bad job in predicting what will happen.
> the IFP redirects value at the cost of all sha256-miners cost. [...] It stands to reason that those damaged by this act would seek to prevent it huh!! never thought of it as a "defensive" maneuver from BTC miners .. that's very very interesting 🤔 @Cain would you care to comment on the idea/theory that BTC mines are simply protecting themselves against the __SHA256 attack__ staged by Amaury and the ABC team??