← Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA On July 23, 2020, Bitcoin ABC announced Grasberg, a new… by @jtoomim
Log in to join in Reading is open to everyone. Replying needs an account.
← Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA On July 23, 2020, Bitcoin ABC announced Grasberg, a new… by @jtoomim
Log in to join in Reading is open to everyone. Replying needs an account.
77 comments
> it should be much less example 30sec-1min. I would love to get to very short block times while still maintaining decentralization. It's going to take a lot of work, though. I believe the first step should be getting ultrafast block propagation, and I think Blocktorrent+UDP will achieve that. Once that's done, 1-2.5 min block times *at scale* (e.g. 1000+ tx/sec) should be be feasible, and we should start talking seriously about changing the block time. After Blocktorrent, I think that the main area of promise is looking at using a DAG or braid instead of a chain in order to get rid of the incentive problems we currently have from orphan rates. I don't know if these ideas will pan out, but there's some promising research from Jute on 6 second block times: https://github.com/Taek42/jute ... > you should watch every move you make, say and do from now on mr toomin. we r watching you and if your lucky we may come and see you and your family. I started replying to your comment before I read all of it. I regret that now. I wish I had just downvoted and moved on. Oh well.
> but there is no real alternative willing to openly step up and commit to doing it better BCHN, BU, and BCHD are all stepping up and committed to doing better. Two of those three teams have been doing better for years. BU is a year older than ABC, and is a light year ahead in terms of scaling performance. They have Graphene, parallel block validation, parallel ATMP support, fast GetMiningCandidate API, a fix for the O(n^2) transaction chain issue (i.e. no transaction chain limit), and a ton of other stuff. The only reason why BCH in general isn't benefiting from those features is because BCH's performance has been determined by the weakest link, and that has been ABC for years now. BCHD made Neutrino, the earliest functional Avalanche preconsensus prototype, and blockchain syncing from UTXO commitments. BCHN is going to catch up quickly with BU in terms of performance. I'll make sure of it. Meanwhile, ABC has done ... backports? Yeah, basically a lot of backports from Core. Good work, ABC.
> There is still no team offering to do the work ABC has been doing You copy-pasted that comment verbatim twice on reddit, too. https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/i32k7m/dark_secrets_of_the_grasberg_daa/g09v71f/ https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/i37fmz/i_prefer_jtoomims_aserti32d_difficulty_adjustment/g09oy0s/ It seems to be a concern troll comment. This seems like lazy social media manipulation. See also, where I replied to another similar comment. https://read.cash/@jtoomim/dark-secrets-of-the-grasberg-daa-a9239fb6#comment-ebbe57b9
Yes, I commented under the article and copied my comment under some copies of (or links to) your article. I am not calling the spreading copies of your article around inappropriate. I just placed my comment there also for people who just see that copy elsewhere or skip reading your original . I still see no team offering to do the work ABC has been doing. People talk about the cool stuff other node teams are doing and I agree. I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the other teams are freed up to do cool stuff by ABC doing the time-consuming maintenance work such as backports from core for them. I agree ABC seems to be making mistakes and is too hard to work with. Your article above is full of excellent points. I think weakening ABC's position as you call for may be a good idea to get them to consider the arguments coming from the community and businesses. My problem is not seeing a better team offering to do the workload ABC has been doing. Also, if there will be a split, I think it is best for BCH if one side of the split is weak and unimportant. I do not see ABC's side being weak in Nov.. So, getting a stronger BCHN before a fork seems bad for BCH. The anti-BCH attackers will tell you ABC is going to be weak (and is weak now). They will lie to you all to do maximum damage to BCH. They are very persuasive and many accounts on social media work for that goal.
Also, I am not saying we should let ABC keep acting like this. I think we need better leadership. I am just asking for the new leadership to step forward and get vetted. They appear to be lurking in the shadows instead. Choosing a leader to fill an already created power vacuum is not good process. Also, i really liked your stated goal of working on scaling. I hope you get that chance in a productive environment as that is my highest priority for BCH.
Indeed, really great and informative article thanks for this one
The inflation of currency value will be counterproductive and the chances of a backfiring is eminent
The claims that ABC = BCH are usually spread by anti ABC forces trying to claim opponents believe that. Of course, there is some truth to it (due to the power of ABC) and they use that truth to hide their false claims wrapped in that truth. I do think the anti-developer-funding movement was created by anti-BCH forces. That is not the same thing as me thinking ABC = BCH even if you get told that over and over. How they brainwashed real BCH fans into strongly believing the idea that funding our developers using mostly BTC miner's money was a bad idea is a mystery and was amazing social engineering. Apparently they even have you on their side so you may not see the logic of my comment as persuasive. In my opinion the dark forces that created the anti-IFP movement (that is full of real pro-BCH folks now) were working to split the community and were hoping for a coin split at that time. They did not get it, but, they are very patient. During that attack, they discovered BCH's Achilles heal was Amaury. Since then they have been demonizing him to great effect. They are still pushing for that split and using BCHN as a tool for that goal. The worst part for me these days is Amaury seems to be helping the attackers by pushing sub-par code in bad ways. I am no expert, so, I could be fooled into thinking that? It looks like he is asking to be replaced. Maybe it is "my way or take this job if you can"? But, I am just guessing due to his silence on "why Grasberg".
> It looks like he is asking to be replaced. I'm still dumbfounded about his behavior. this is an option, but I don't think it's the most likely one. amaury could easily end all the drama and get us back on track (and keep most of his powers) by simply accepting asert. I really can't explain why he doesn't do that. if he has the success of bch as primary goal, I think he should do just that to avoid further division and a split. maybe he's trying to prove the hypothesis that a Dev team can be fired. that would be a bold move indeed.
I think you may be right about this. I guess that would explain the down-votes, lol.
If you are right, I think Grasberg gives to the future as Mr Nester says. Assuming little future value to make the logic work is not persuasive to me.
that was a great effort and a good written article by you.
I think we have a new hero in Bitcoin Cash .. Thanks for sharing, this is a huge job that requires time to breathe, from Venezuela, we send you hugs
My guess is we'll look back, and this post will be what turned the ship back in the direction of decentralized P2P cash. Thank you jtoomin for your leadership and integrity.
Awesome job explaining this
Good article
Wow,nice article,knew nothing about DAA Before now
Indeed a great article
Oh, I see. You poor soul, you. Here have some more smoke blown up your butt.
This is really a great article. Found lots of amazing informations.
It's a very helpful content. Thanks to the writer
this is by far the most enlightening article i have read on bitcoin cash
Sir applying to translate your article to Hindi.
thanks for this insanely detailed article
I never once regretted it. After I published my proposal, developers started asking questions about the aserti3 design decisions in the BCHN slack, including developers for other full nodes like Tom Zander (Flowee) and Fernando Pelliccioni (Knuth). Tom Harding also chipped in in a few cases. On July 14th, after a couple of days of this, I was asked a question from freetrader about an hour after I went to sleep, asking me where and how they should do code review. Being asleep, I didn't respond, and freetrader and mtrycz didn't wait; they just did it on my repository, so I woke up to this. The next night was very different. Instead of comments like "Hey, there are problems X, Y, and Z, and you should add such-and-such unit tests," as I would expect at ABC, what I woke up to was that freetrader had forked my code, started fixing stuff, and started writing unit tests. Over the next few days, this continued back and forth, with each of us copying from each other's branches while the other slept, or occasionally submitting merge requests to each other. It was the kind of rapid, permissionless, chaotic development that open source development is supposed to be. It was productive, and it was fun. 😂😂😂
And it was right to do. BCH needs development, yes, good coders, yes, funding, of course, but it really needs to remain open and united towards a common goal (no need to mention what the goal is, we all know, yet some seems to forget).
Very detailed. We can't allow arbitrary changes no matter what. If BCH can be controlled by a single individual or group we lose all what we seek in the first place. ABC implementations seems greedy now. They did great for years, but sometimes we face the decision of replace what have been working for what is malfunctioning.
More comments