Reddit User Account Overview

/u/

/u/steve_m0
Redditor Since July 14, 2016 (1,488 days old)
Karma Posts: 312 Comments: 1,396 Combined: 1,708
Active in


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/

https://www.change.org/p/bitcoin-cash-community-bitcoin-abc-must-step-down-from-control-of-bitcoin-cash[change.org](https://www.change.org/p/bitcoin-cash-community-bitcoin-abc-must-step-down-from-control-of-bitcoin-cash) Introduction Bitcoin Cash lived because of Amaury taking control against the community and being able to push through the brainwashed community of Bitcoin, especially BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin back in 2017. But today, where BCH has split into BCH and BSV, his actions are attempting to destroy BCH himself by doing things not wanted by the remaining community that supports the BCH goal in general. Last March, he pushed forward for the Infrastructure Funding Plan, a way to pay the developers from a small portion of the blocks mined by the miners. However, it's implementation was not a very good one, due to its inherent limitations by only making Bitcoin ABC, which was the main mining node, dictate which wallet address does the "IFP" coins go to, and therefore Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN) was created without it as Bitcoin ABC still has the IFP in their code. Last few weeks ago, Johnathan Toomin proposed the ASERT DAA for a replacement DAA or difficulty adjustment algorithm. However, because Toomin created it on BCHN and not ABC, it was not taken by Bitcoin ABC and Amaury created Grasberg DAA in response. This DAA was hastily made and was immediately put into the Bitcoin ABC. The code is currently being under review and a lot of it is being heavily rewritten back conform with Toomin's ASERT, which had been a better proposal in itself. Take note that Grasberg did not start as a proposal. In smaller related news, Shammah Chancellor created a meme competition about Bitcoin Cash's current community. The people liked it and most of Read.Cash joined it, however, it broke an essential rule from the media platform, due to the main goal for the memes containing controversial name-calling insults for Amaury and status in the Bitcoin Cash community. While the competition is in good graces, what we all don't know is that memes will only encourage those of ill intent to continue them, knowing that it will merely rile up those who do not want the struggle and the FUD and they will attack others in a deeper level. It had a side-effect of the Read.Cash developer banning himself from it. Some people take memes seriously, and they do not care if you say they are satire or not. This brings us to my point. We need a change of direction, and it starts with the hero who had turned into a villain and the community he has with it. Amaury Séchet should stop controlling the Bitcoin Cash protocol and allow others to implement their proposals. If you can't do it, get someone else. Shammah Chancellor should stop being a hypocrite and saying this (and this!) while going out to proclaim that Read.Cash is censored. Go do your own thing if you don't want it. C. Edward Kelso should stop making anyone who is against Shammah nor Amaury or any of the Bitcoin ABC members look bad. Write the truth if needed. Heavily imply it, if you can't stop doing it your badly-described articles. Bitcoin Cash should not be led by these people if all they do not bend down and take the community at their backs. We already have great progress and these setbacks will cost us the whole Bitcoin promise. We are already under attack. Do not let them destroy it.

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 01:17:52

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ev03sa/csw_true_end_game/

How about a distraction from all the dev tax? We have not had a good CSW Discussion in a while. Hope you find these thoughts interesting. Some capt obvious: CSW never really follows thru on any of his threats. We really cant trust anything he says. We could make an entire thread dedicated to all his wild claims that he promises to do by xdate then it never happens, Why does he continually do this? CSW invented a reason to split BCH, even tho bsv is doing some neat things that would not have been done without a split. But Why create BSV? CSW (nChain) is filing more crypto patents than everyone else combined. Why? Put a bookmark here, go watch "The Patent Scam". It was available on pluto.tv but many other sources to watch online for free. After watching this, here is my theory: nChain is acquiring every type of patent they can dream up so they can sue everyone else into oblivion. In the documentary, the patent trolls had an unusual advantage over the judges and the courts. What if CSW has some courts (or governments) colluding with him? Why create BSV? This gives CSW/nchain credibility of being active in the space of the patents they hold. A big weakness of the patent trolls in documentary was no one was actively doing anything with the patents, except for suing everyone. But their daddys were the judges in the courts where the suits were filed, so it did not really matter. BSV sole purpose is to give the lawsuits credibility, period. If there was no BCH split, they would not have as strong of patent claims. Why all the crazy claims SN, keys, crash btc etc then??. This creates some hype/interest in BSV. More hype/higher price of BSV, the more credibility his case. BSV justifies lawsuits, crazy claims hype up BSV. The CSW/nchain End Game is to sue everyone into oblivion, everything else is just noise. There will be no keys to SN coins, No crashing BTC/BCH. Only lawsuits. The lawsuits we see now from nChain are not even the tip of the iceberg. This is all speculation, what you say?

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 22:51:56

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dmsotp/how_to_guarantee_a_consistent_10_min_block_time/

Here is an idea to guarantee 10 min block time, every block. Remember guys, this is just an idea, this is NOT any whitepaper or an English paper. This is like a concept scribbled down on a brown paper bag. Think of it conceptually. First, just Scrap the DAA. Scrap the 2 week block difficulty adjustment idea. The goal is to have a certain reward every 10 minutes. This is so simple it might even work. Basically, whoever has the largest difficulty solution at 10 min mark, is the block reward winner. There is still a race, it is just who did the best in 10 min vs who found and acceptable solution first. Thinking about it, it works fine for an average number over 2 weeks, but it does not produce consistent confirmation times. (I think this also hurts on boarding, imagine the first time you use something it takes an hour to confirm vs it will confirm in 10 minutes or less, guaranteed) How would this work? At the beginning of the new block, miners will start submitting their block solution. All the miners/nodes will keep a running tab of the highest difficulty solution that has been submitted on the network. Since I am going to refer to this many times, lets call the current highest difficulty solution “Best”. Since there will be no best from the start, to minimize the enormous amounts of “Best” submits, there will be a node configurable minimum limit, some % of the previous block, before you make a “Best” submission. You know your mining pool and what difficulty level is good for you to eliminate crazy high submissions in the first few minutes. Maybe we just say, no submissions until new block time is greater than 2 or 3 minutes, at that point you submit your pools “Best”, IF it is better than the one on the network. During mining of the block, as better “Best” are found they are broadcast and all the nodes/miners keep a running tab of the “Best”. It will take some time (seconds) lets call it 30 seconds, for the “Best” to be shared, validated and consensus reached. Consensus could be when 70% of nodes/miners have confirmed “Best”. As soon as consensus is reached, the block has been confirmed or found. There will be a variable needed to represent this consensus confirmation time. Since the block is found at the point of consensus confirmation, we need to subtract this from 10 minutes. Since we are saying this takes 30 seconds, we need to start the confirming the consensus process at the block time of 9:30 mark. So after 9:30, no better Bests will be accepted. The consensus confirmation takes 30 seconds. Block time = 10 minutes. This consensus confirmation time can be adjusted every 2 weeks based upon the 2 week average block times. For example, the 2 week blocktime average= 9:52, now the “offset” consensus confirmation time on Best would be reduced by 8 seconds, to 22 seconds and the nodes will start consensus confirmation time at 9:38 block time. Hence if avg 2 week block time = 10:15, the offset will be increased by 15 seconds so the consensus confirmation time would start at 9:15 block time). As the number of transactions/block increases, this consensus confirmation time will need to be increased because it will take longer to verify all the tx in the Best. Imagine a new best submitted at 9:29 with 1,000,000 transactions to confirm. Might take a few more seconds than a best with 1000 tx. I think this might be what is needed in BSV to keep the mega blocks from being orphaned due to the amount of time it takes to transmit and confirm the mega blocks. There will still be a variance in block time, but we will not have short block times of 10 seconds and others of 90 minutes. Now shortest/longest block times will be 9:31 and 11 minutes – speculative. How do we get the 9:31 block time if the consensus confirmation starts at 9:30? Imagine this new block time adjustment system has been running for a year or so. Miners/nodes learn statistically when a very good best has been submitted early, they will know if it is not probable to determine a better best. At this point, after they have verified the Best, they get a head start and start mining a new block on top of this best. So at the 9:30 mark, everyone already has their vote submitted and immediately have unanimous decision on that block best. How do we get the longer 11:00 minute block? Remember earlier, I mentioned what if you do not accept a better best after the 9:30 time? Well lets say you have 40% of the hashpower/consensus vote and 65% is needed for consensus. They can never get it without you. You can’t go rouge, but you can game the system a little. Imagine you keep mining and at 9:40 you find a new best. So you change your vote and say this is the new best. If concensus is not reached in the first iteration, another confirming round is made and this later “Best” works it’s way in, consensus is confirmed and the block is found. These iterations will not go on forever, eventually, a better best will not be found during the consensus confirmation time and the block will be confirmed. These will be calculated risks that the miners will determine if it is worth it to keep mining or to start on the next block. (Maybe the consensus confirmation is strictly a minimum % of nodes in consensus of the best. No way a miner could hold up the confirmation by holding on to a lessor best.) This will eliminate the problem of splitting/orphan the miners on two different chains, as there are no fast/empty blocks in this system. If you have a tie, you go into sudden death race, you either find a better best that everyone confirms or everyone confirms the current best. Pitty the small pool that has the best at 9:30 and at 9:45 the big pool pushed their new best in the mix. But it is worse under current conditions for the small pool, correct? Does this make the network less secure? • No it makes it more secure. No miner competing orphan forks as there are no fast, zero time blocks. Zero time blocks are the only way the orphan forks can happen. • No empty blocks, block time must be 10 minutes so no benefit unless you really do have 20 seconds to mine on nothing and you really get a Best that no one is willing to compete with. This may not eliminate zero blocks, but should eliminated 90% of them. • Will this type of system loose hashrate? No. It is the same reward/10 minutes. Actually, it should attract more miners, as it is a fairer system. Not as many games to cheat the system. • Reorgs are now impossible. Un doing the blockchain is no longer possible as you can not speedup the blocks to get ahead of the current chain. Once you go back in time to reorg a block, you are now stuck back in time. In addition to all the good technical reasons, Imagine all the new gambling games that could be played, betting in real time on the block winner, watching the race as it unfolds, seeing who has the current best, who tops that one, as the time ticks down, will there be a new best, etc etc. just an idea.

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on October 25, 2019 01:10:31

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bkq60u/why_big_big_companies_will_not_invest_in_crypto/

I felt my answer to this post deserved its own post. Here is the OP https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bkoacd/is_there_anything_that_would_stop_a_large/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app I think this is such an obvious move to make $$$$ , but why dont they? Answer at the end. For those of you wondering why would amazon/apple/msft etc ever do this? To make a crap ton of profit above what they are making now that is why. How would they do this? Apple right now has 225 Billion in cash in the bank, making 2% interest or less. This is over 2x of ALL crypto. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/apple-now-has-225-billion-cash-on-hand.html Lets assume they choose to go all in on BCH and they are willing to invest 50 Billion. They would need multiple secret accounts on all exchanges and start slowly scraping bch. Over about 6 months I guess they would acquire 5M BCH at avg price of 10k each. After they secretly buy a hoard of BCH, they update all OS to accept BCH and get all their partners to do the same. They really start promoting BCH. Now they start dumping another 50B fiat into buying more BCH. They have bch/fiat exchange built right into all OS. They start paying employees and vendors in BCH. BCH price is now well over $200,000. Apple now holds 1 Trillion worth of BCH. These numbers are way way conservative. The returns are probably much much higher if this would happen. So why dont they? If they did, fiat would be going worthless. These companies owe their existence to governments and governments can not let fiat go to zero. That is why these big companies will never support crypto, because the govt wont let them. Govt would seize assets/ bank accounts / call them monopolies and break them up and sell them off. If anyone of them would do it, they would have to be very secretive about moving the money to buy BCH in 1st place. Any thoughts?

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on May 4, 2019 17:40:58

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a8qn43/winning_is_fun/

Lets ALL win together!!!!! Lets face it, the entire crypto community is very very small. We all want it to grow, right? I just wanted to share my thoughts that real problem restricting our growth is our own community. Taking a step back and evaluating ourselves from an outsiders point of view, I dont think people are being persuaded to join the crypto space because of all the hate. There is a BIG HUGE difference between rationally discussing/debating the pros / cons of opposing solutions VS flat out name calling accusations & insults. No one wants to be a part of a hate group? Do they? Are we trying to recruit haters / negative personas to the crypto space?? There is soooo much hate in crypto now: bch hates bsv hates btc hates bsv hates bch hates btc hates bch. One crypto company having a celebration because another crypto company went bankrupt is pathetic. It is like your hand cutting off your foot because it is not a hand. Thats a lot of hate, unfortunately that is only a small part of the hate. We are never going to be perfect, but we can do better. Lets try to focus on promoting the positives of the coin we believe in. A rising tide lifts ALL boats is very true in life, very true in crypto. Same is true in stock market. There may be junk stocks, junk coins, etc. but even a bag full of dry dung floats and will rise with a rising tide. We also need to remember that a low tide lowers ALL boats. A 100MM yacht sits the same level as a man in an inner tube. When we attack each other we are all loosing. I understand there are bad actors that need to be exposed and all the NPC BOT crap has become soo bad you cant even ask a polite question, 1st reaction is you are a troll, shill or something. We need to remember that all of us working together can accomplish much more than all of us working independently. This post might not improve anyones actions. We do not need to change everyone, we just need a few leaders to set the example to persuade the masses that crypto is a safe place to trust with their $$$$$$. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on December 22, 2018 20:36:22

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9wa1bp/what_if_revised/

## My original post was 2 months ago, found here [https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ezvef/what\_if/](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ezvef/what_if/) With new developments, mainly Saturday hashrate spike, I have revised what MIGHT be happening. Now CSW/CG might be all on their own on this, but I wonder if Jihan and Roger know & they are just playing along. If so, I dont think they would ever admit to it. This is a coordinated effort to start/create the fippening. 1st They start the FUD fighting and start selling some of their BCH to buy BTC driving the ratio down so it eventually sends the hashrate to BTC. This will push the BTC difficulty way up. 2. On or slightly after the Nov 15 fork begins, it is over quickly. JiHan can see he does not have the hashrate and can not win, so he gives to live another day, or it was all planned this way, but it ends rather quickly, because .. . . . . We have seen the hash power CSW has on Sat. (I am not sure who operates fork.lol, but the stats seem to have disappeared, this is not variability, if that was the stat at the time, that was the number. Variability or No Variability, that was the number. Links: [https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-break-records-processing-multiple-32-mb-blocks/](https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-break-records-processing-multiple-32-mb-blocks/) [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrpWa1bXcAEF8cy.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrpWa1bXcAEF8cy.jpg:large) I bet that CSW has more parked on BTC than this. I believe that the plan will be to: A. Move the BTC hash power to BCHSV B. Start Selling BTC and Buying BCHSV C. ABC gives in D. Keep hash on BCH E. Keep selling BTC and now buying BCH. BTC lost 1/3 to ½ of hashpower at the start producing 15 to 20 minute blocks. At 15 min blocks, the mempool will start to grow with no increase in tx. BTC price is dropping, Panic sell will start and tx increase now mempool is getting large. This makes BTC less profitable, equaling out the lower profitability of BCH due to increased hashrate difficulty increase. But, BCH price has been increasing so more hash starts to switch to BCH You can see how fast the flippening will be. The only difference on this “What IF” revision is that it happens much faster as I did not anticipate how much hashpower CSW had been building in secret. IF he has 50% of the BTC hashrate, he could start the flippening IF he can get the BCH price to flip too. If the hash and price flip to BCH I do not think BTC will survive. BCH can recover, I am not sure BTC could recover from this situation.. Some things to think about: Notice how Calvin is now signaling that he will follow ABC if the longest chain. Floating the idea of one coin, not two. I believe they know what is going on. Think back to the Bangkok meeting, CSW never even attempted to persuade anyone, he never intended to get everyone on one page, he wanted the FUD. That email that CSW wrote Roger, we could not dream up any more exaggerated FUD than that email. Jihan talking smack about CSW, That just does not seem like his character. Jihan let core steal BTC, now he is in a big fight about CTOR????? really??????This is a difference, but not that much of a difference. JiHan wanted bigger blocks in Aug 17, now he does not????? makes no sense, unless creating FUD. These issues they are fighting about is a difference of waiting 6 months for some. They are dreaming up reasons to create a fight. They are acting like they are fighting each other, then when core relaxes, they join each other and BOOM, it is too late, the war is over, The Flippening Has Happened. Bcore is now stuck with 20 Million tx in the mempool that will take 1 month to clear. BCH/BTC ratio is now 10:1. The 1MB (or 1.5MB) block limit and the 2016 block diff adjustment, BTC will never recover. CSW, JiHan, Roger do not want any of this to look like they intentionally set out to kill BTC. They want it to look like a side effect due to the BCH hard fork fight/HASH WAR. End result is BCH is now the #1 market cap coin. ​ Real Life is better than any dreamed up drama. I hope that I am hodl the right coins :)

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on November 11, 2018 21:39:05

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ezvef/what_if/

Well, I hate to tell of some secret plans. But I will ONLY share with the true bitcoin believers here on bch. (The core folks will never trade their btc for bch, no matter what. No matter how much evidence is shown to them. Even if they know what is going to happen, they still will not sell their btc for bch even if they see it going to zero, this is why I share this with the BCH supporters, let me say, this is my "theory"). Follow me on my "What If" journey. At some point, (I believe before the end of the year, but after the hardfork drama is over) On a coordinated, specified day, Jihan and CSW and Ver and, and , and, and, etc. will convert all their btc holdings to bch. When (not IF) but when this happens, you need to be holding BCH. The current daily BCH volume, total on all the exchanges is not even 2000 BTC, so it wont take much to push BCH price way up. Bitmain has 22,000 coins, plus do we know how much CSW, Ver, + + + have? I believe that they have created this fork drama to force the BCH/BTC price down for now. (Maybe they are even selling a little at certain times to help the price drop, they have definitely stopped buying.) Then at a pre-determined time, they will do a coordinated buy to spike the bch price making a fortune for them and BCH HODLrs. BUT making a fortune is NOT their goal, they are already crypto rich. This is NOT a pump and dump scheme. Their Goal is to cause the flippening. Imagine if they can take BCH from 0.05 to 0.50 in one day and then let the market drive it higher, it could possibly destroy BTC, returning the true bitcoin back to proper market dominance. **IMAGINE the scenario:** **Current and prior to 4 NOVEMBER.** Jihan, ABC, CSW, Coingeek Continue the BCH split drama, sell a little BCH to force the price down slowly, keeping the mining profitability relatively equal between BCH and BTC. Pushing the price down to 0.05 BCH/BTC. (Core folks feel they have won) **4 NOVEMBER, 2018 2am UTC**, Core has a difficulty adjustment, 2016 blocks/2 weeks to go before the next difficulty adjustment. **5 NOVEMBER, 2018 - 8am UTC - Monday** Jihan, ABC, Ver, Unlimited, CSW, nchain, coingeetk, etc etc, all announce that there are many good things in the works with BCH and that everyone has agreed to test/evaluate all of the contentious changes, pushing the dates to decide to implement such changes to May 2019. There will not be any split on Nov 15, Only the changes that have unanimous consensus/support. BCH Community is now united and very excited for the future (Much more than normal) **5 NOVEMBER, 12PM UTC** 1,000 BTC is dumped to market buy BCH. BCH spikes from 0.05 to 0.20. Mining profitability is 3-4x on BCH and significant hash MOVES to BCH. So much so btc is only confirming 2-3 blocks/hour. **5 NOVEMBER, 2PM UTC** People start selling their BTC, people start moving their BTC to an exchange to sell. BTC mempool is at 15MB and growing and BTC has only mined 4 blocks in two hours. BCH/BTC hashrate is 30/70. Most big bitcoin players just think this is a pump and dump seen all the time, they do nothing waiting for the BCH price to drop. Financial whales have no technical clue what is going on, they start to short BCH because RSI is just to high, and bcash is just a scam, stupid pump and dump, they think. **5 NOVEMBER, 6PM UTC** BCH is now 0.30/BTC. BCH is now 5-6x more profitable to mine, miners that have never thought about mining BCH, are now trying to figure out how to switch to BCH. Hashrate is now 35/65 BCH/BTC Mempool is now 40 MB. BTC has only mined 10 blocks in 4 hours. There starts to be a little panic in the stomach of core. If this continues, we have to wait another 1850 blocks before a difficulty adjustment. Normally that would take 12 days, but if everything stays the same, it will take 3 weeks. Oh Nooooo. Another 1000 BTC is dumped to sell at market price for BCH **6 NOVEMBER, 12AM UTC** BCH is now 0.50/BTC BCH is now 10x more profitable to mine Hashrate is now 70/30 BCH/BTC Mempool is now 100 MB, fees are at $1000 to get tx confirmed. Panic selling is now hitting. Core is only confirming 3 blocks in two hours. 1825 blocks to get to next diff adjustment, 50 days away if things remain constant **6** **NOVEMBER, 8AM UTC** Core is in full panic mode, No clear plan how to reverse these events. This looks to be 1000x worse than December 2017, mempool is 200MB, 1 block/hr. Hashrate is 80/20 BCH/BTC. Core starts discussing an emergency difficulty adjustment software update. BCH is now 0.75/BTC All Whales trying to short BCH have been exterminated. BTC holders are in full panic mode, all their BTC is in the mempool. $1000 fee does not get tx confirmed in core. **6 NOVEMBER, 12PM UTC** BCH is now 1.33/BTC Or BTC is 0.75 BCH BCH Whales are now shorting BTC Hashrate is now 85/15 BCH/BTC Core is averaging 1 block every 75 minutes. Mempool is 300MB. Core announces new software release with emergency difficulty adjustment will be out in hours. **6 NOVEMBER, 6PM UTC** BTC is now only 0.5 BCH Mainstream Media is starting to blame core for not fixing Dec 2017 problem and BCH is true Bitcoin Hashrate is now 90/10 BCH/BTC Core emergency difficulty adjustment is implemented Core is averaging 4 block every hour. Mempool is 350MB. 200 BTC has recently been lost on the Lightning network **7** **NOVEMBER, 12AM UTC** BTC is now only 0.2 BCH, there is almost zero buying interest in BTC due to the mempool disaster. Mempool is still 300MB BCH has mined 3 consecutive 32MB blocks. **7** **NOVEMBER, 8AM UTC** BTC is now only 0.05 BCH Core has announced they are increasing their block size to 4MB to “Fix” the mempool problem. Even the general public laughs at Core efforts now, I have BCH, Thank You! So, like the stress test, lets have a BUY test. Lets all accumulate as much BTC as we can until 5 November. At 5 November 8AM EST, lets all place market BUY orders with all of our BTC holdings. Would that be fun or what? Seriously, all of this is possible and there is NOTHING Core can do to stop a scenario like the above from happening. And it is all Cores fault, because of the stubborn fixation on 1mb blocks and Lightning. Core can not scale. ​

posted by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on September 11, 2018 14:02:50
Top
/r/btc/comments/i69qkh/amaury_sechet_walking_out_from_daa_meeting_3_clip/g0x7bec/

Great Ted talk that is soo true. We see David Allen, maybe one of the top Green chickens switching to a red chicken in moments. It did appear many were trying to be fair and honest. I really doubt Amaury has had good intentions. I feel it is obvious he has had nefarious intentions all along. Amaury was/is defensive because he is promoting his devious scheme so when others question him, he calls them a liar. Ted talk explains what happened, not how to get along with Red chickens. You can not make a Red chicken Green if the chicken wants to be a Red chicken .

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 9, 2020 15:48:58
/r/btc/comments/i54b39/a_developer_who_will_force_8_tax_into_the_chain/g0msm1g/

This is almost 9M/ year

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 22:18:33
/r/btc/comments/i4q7zz/abc_officially_forking_all_newly_mined_blocks/g0mse76/

If only they would act in a way to be united

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 22:16:25
/r/btc/comments/i4q7zz/abc_officially_forking_all_newly_mined_blocks/g0kk05f/

What if 75% mine on BCHN? Will ABC change or split

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 11:24:43
/r/btc/comments/i4q7zz/abc_officially_forking_all_newly_mined_blocks/g0kexpd/

This will still create a split tho: ABC must accept BCHN and other blocks that do not pay the 8% extortion fee. This creates a split. If 90% of network is BCHN, why would BCHN mine on the chain ABC does not accept? who will run ABC when your chain is 90% behind? If 90% run ABC, why would BCHN want all of their blocks to be discarded. Only option to see this play out is to make both accept the other. If you want to support ABC you can, if not, not.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 10:48:32
/r/btc/comments/i4q7zz/abc_officially_forking_all_newly_mined_blocks/g0jvw20/

So, ABC collecting $300*6.25*6*0.08=$900/hr 24/7/365= 7.9M/Year Yeah ok ok ok

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 08:23:58
/r/btc/comments/i4q7zz/abc_officially_forking_all_newly_mined_blocks/g0jvi4v/

If your NET profit is 10%, you are now mining at a 2% profit. Most miners are not producing a Net Profit> 10% Bye bye profitable mining.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 08:20:42
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0h1pzv/

Thanks, can you give me a 2-3 sentence ELI5 on the relation between snowglobe to Avalanche and sybil resistance

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 14:39:11
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0f2zz1/

1. It exists, it just has not been implemented 2. Please elaborate, I did not read about that.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 02:25:02
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0el1n4/

I just read some papers on Avalanche. (maybe you should, lol) Part of the sybil resistance that Avalanche depends upon is due to the POW. The 10MBT continues to use same POW and does not do anything to hurt the current POW system. The other part Avalanche uses to protect agains sybil attacks is that only the miners of the last 100 blocks participate in this consensus checking, eliminating a bad actor from spinning up a bunch of nodes to create problems.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 22:47:05
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0cx427/

> sybil resistance Not to be oversimplistic, but I think we could create a list of "trusted" nodes or "blocked" nodes. I think we go with trusted nodes. I need to research this more of exactly how Avalanche uses POW for sybil resistance. or maybe not, Even if I give a thesis on the solution, not sure it would change minds.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 14:43:41
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0cctd9/

ReadCash, Thank you for replying. Even though we disagree, you still took significant time to reply in an educated way. This is how we persuade others, change minds, etc. Thanks again. I agree with you on these ms differences, there is no decentralized way we can get our clocks to sync down to the ms. I do not believe we need to be *that* accurate to fix this. (fix the 10 second and 3 hour blocks) ​ >The problem is that you can't determine 10 minutes in a distributed system **reliably.** I think the term we need to define is "reliably". I am not sure that we need better than +/- 10,000 ms to make this work. I believe that we can get all the nodes Block Age to agree +/- 10 seconds. So in this case, if reliably = +/-10 seconds, we can determine 10 minutes reliably. If +/- 10 seconds is not possible, I do need to drop this. /u/chris_pacia Can you comment here? IF we have 100 nodes and they all have different Block Age, Can we use the Avalanche system to get consensus on the Block Age? If yes, how long would that take and how accurate would we set the nodes Block Age (+/- 3 seconds)? ​ >New York and London work on one chain of blocks and see Australia's block as invalid, because it has lower difficulty. Australia sees that block as invalid, because it wasn't found in time. In the 10MBT, if both blocks are found in the block age time window, the higher difficulty is chosen. Lets say NY/L block they have it submitted at BlockAge = 605 sec. Australia has another block submitted at 608 sec, but they see NY/L block as 621, so they reject the block. So there can be two consensus checks: 1, what is the consensus block age of NY/L block, if it comes in at 620 or less, it will get the block reward (and considered the previous block) If a node joins during this confusion, they are looking for consensus from all the nodes of the previous block. Each node will have to timestamp these BestDiff with their local BlockAge clock. No one is submitting their BlockAge time with their BestDiff submission to the network. The success of 10MBT depends on these factors: Can we get Block Age Consensus +/- 10 seconds? Can we get consensus for the winning HighDiff when some timestamp after the "Overtime" and some stamp within "Overtime" of Block Age? Can we get consensus of previous block? In this system, mining nodes will be incentivezed to have an accurate BlockAge Clock. (Or know how the large majority of the nodes will timestamp their HighDiff submission.) (ie, if you know everyone is already working on the next block, no matter what you submit, you know it will not be accepted) **edit to respond to this comment:** >you end up with Miner A (1000Th power), Miner B (100TH power), Miner C(900TH power). Miner A will ALWAYS win blocks, so miners B and C will leave. That's it, you've developed a centralized mint, Miner A will not always win. Your assumption is that Miner A will ALWAYS find the higher diff. (Imagine if you have 2000 equal asic machines, that is like saying I know that all the High Diffs will be found from a specific 1000 machines, so I will shut the other 1000 off). The math/statistics are the same here as in current mining. Miner A = 50%, Miner B = 5% Miner C = 45% and over time, that will be the proportion of the blocks that each win. There may be some strategies that can increase your winnings a few %, but not enough to run off a miner with less hash power.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 12:35:48
/r/btc/comments/i3g9pn/but_why_do_people_care_about_compensating_for/g0bwypd/

Sam, quit trolling. Read the chronological accounts, watch the dev meetings, amury will not even discuss, acting like a dictator today. That is why there is such opposition. Someone summed it like this: There is a difference between asking difficult questions and Being difficult to deal with The 1st is acceptable The 2nd is not Your attack is on the first

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 10:41:28
/r/btc/comments/i3k0kk/palcoins_sell_you_bitcoins_for_paypal_without_id/g0bw5bf/

Will u sell btc for verified paypal?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 10:35:58
/r/btc/comments/i3k0kk/palcoins_sell_you_bitcoins_for_paypal_without_id/g0bug97/

Do you sell BTC for unverified paypal? Lol

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 10:24:53
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0bu6fx/

All valid. The current situation is we have blocks 10 sec long with low difficulty, then we have blocks with high difficulty that are hours long. Not sure you think that is good. Also, net amount of hash work would be the same over 24 hours with any DAA version or the 10MBT

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 10:22:55
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0btoe8/

The Avalanche feature that determines which is the valid tx. I think this is a simplified explanation. For example sake, If there a 2 tx, txA and txB, your node believes txA is valid and the other node says txB, you change to txB, but on a larger scale. If you believe block age is 65 seconds and everyone else is 70seconds, you adjust your block age to 70 seconds

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 10:18:40
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0bpjfq/

Not sure about the comment that the purpose of the DAA is to prevent wild swings in difficulty. Are you aware with the current problem? I think you like 3 hour long blocks

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 09:42:33
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0bp5iv/

True 1. The mining rules today do not require miners work a full 10 min. As soon as you hit difficulty, next block 2. So it does not seem any different than today. Think about the 10 second blocks today

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 09:38:46
/r/btc/comments/i3e6k7/i_do_not_believe_any_version_of_a_daa_will_fix/g0ayyks/

Thanks, I feel like I might be too far out to consider. Trying to focus on the goals you get there. Trying to figure out how can we tweak a little improvement, not the same. There are a few other details to work out, lol

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 03:20:09
/r/btc/comments/i2yjii/joint_statement_on_aserti32d_algorithm/g0as54x/

Hello, Here is my idea on generating consistent 10 min block times: [https://read.cash/@steve.readcash/bch-edaa-i-would-like-you-to-meet-10mbt-10-min-block-time-1b115f0f](https://read.cash/@steve.readcash/bch-edaa-i-would-like-you-to-meet-10mbt-10-min-block-time-1b115f0f)

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 01:40:12
/r/btc/comments/i2f9wm/i_guess_well_know_for_sure_when_the_announcements/g0838q9/

100% this. I am in 100% support of Amuckery if: he is transparent, works well with others, is willing to accept other code that is better than his, If he is pushing something that has major disagreement (especially with other devs)he will drop it. Allows straw polls of support in dev meetings He will openly discuss and debate the pros & cons of any changes. Right now, today, he is doing the exact opposite of the above.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 12:31:33
/r/btc/comments/i2f9wm/i_guess_well_know_for_sure_when_the_announcements/g07caae/

Yes, I agree. What a dilemma All of that history does not give him the right to be a dictator AND force code that will hurt BCH. I dont want to see posts supporting this dictatorship, regardless all the good he may have done in past. It looks like he is giving all that up.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 09:09:49
/r/btc/comments/i2f9wm/i_guess_well_know_for_sure_when_the_announcements/g07c3h7/

Yes, I agree. What a dilemma All of that history does not give him the right to be a dictator AND force code that will hurt BCH.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 09:07:42
/r/btc/comments/htke52/bitcoin_cash_has_a_lot_going_for_it_decentralised/g07asz8/

So there are no bad actors in crypto/bch?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 08:52:54
/r/btc/comments/i2f9wm/i_guess_well_know_for_sure_when_the_announcements/g07amqy/

Yes, I want to avoid a split too. This is why I am pushing to remove Armaury as he is promoting division.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 08:50:54
/r/btc/comments/i2f9wm/i_guess_well_know_for_sure_when_the_announcements/g05kb30/

Who are the major BCH minors? Do they really want this??

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 19:27:25
/r/btc/comments/i2dl4g/is_there_going_to_be_a_split/g04m9ti/

First they ignore you Then they mock you: bcash bcash btrash bcash Then they fight you <last 30 months> Then you win

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 14:32:31
/r/btc/comments/i29chw/the_evolution_of_trust_a_game_theoretically_sound/g04kuz9/

That is a very very good visual. Many good lessons learned. My take away, I think our goal in this situation is not necessarily who wins, but how to eliminate the cheaters quickly. So this was my goal: I played in the sandbox to learn how to eliminate the cheater quickly. The conclusions I think we all believe to be obvious. As we try to increase adoption, one negative that all of crypto has, is the newbie, very first transaction, gets scammed and says never again, then their negative discussion with others makes them never try. We need to eliminate the cheater. In the sandbox, choose ANY setting you want. If the # of rounds are 3 or less, the Cheaters win 100%. (there was one scenario where cheaters lost once, but I ran that same scenario over 5x and they won 5 times in a row) I also gave the win to the cheaters if the simulation went beyond 30 seconds and they were still alive) In real life, the cheater will never play a second round with anyone. So, in the real world, they will never be eliminated and will take over. The one metric I would like to add: We need to incorporate some type of feedback model. The likes, downvotes, karma, reputation score, etc. Everyone starts off with an equal reputation score, others give others feedback that is public. And you could choose to NOT play against someone that does not have 3 of 5 stars or greater. You could even give a good player a negative mark. This way, you can stop the rounds if you give them too many negatives to continue. So You could say not to even trade with someone with less than -2.1. Also, you could say not to trade with anyone that had -10 marks in a row. This sand box would get a little complex, (but isn't real life?) Then we would have to add a new character, the chameleon, one who cooperates until he gains a good reputation and goes full on cheat mode. Maybe, what we do is end up creating a game, where it forces a dishonest cheater to cooperate the majority of the time.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 14:21:45
/r/btc/comments/i2dl4g/is_there_going_to_be_a_split/g04ayk3/

And he is doing it regardless, Acting like a dictator.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 13:01:19
/r/btc/comments/i227v4/red_pill_time_abc_are_not_magical_wizards_this_is/g01zezm/

Everything is fine, think happy thoughts!

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 00:03:37
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g01mv14/

Got an answer?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 21:50:36
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g01k4d6/

Big bub, It sure looks like you are a bot, What is twenty-one / three. ?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 21:22:48
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g01jyf7/

Just say no

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 21:21:06
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g01io5t/

Ok I asked a question, thats all, you call me dishonest Then you say, if there was a dictator, having a dictator would be better than the alternative I suggest (removing the dictator) Lay off the crack pipe

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 21:08:00
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/g01fd8p/

I guess you are anti armory if you want everyone to know the dictatorial behavior of him. I am anti dictator, especially when the dictator is trying to cause a split and force harmful code.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 20:34:42
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g01f3k6/

What good is a dictator pushing harmful code?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 20:31:58
/r/btc/comments/i0q0rw/who_benefits_from_a_split_in_bitcoin_cash_miners/g01cetw/

#1 how are longer confirmations times good? I love these childish games Fact, no its not, proof proof proof, yea that is what all anti BCH say 2. Last dev meeting they wanted to take a straw poll of who was or was not in favor, it seemed like several 8-2? Were against but they would not take a poll because amreury said not vote. You can watch it on youtube 3. He literarily said it was going in, no time to test any other code, it was easier for him to just write his own.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 20:04:41
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g01buls/

Sooo dumb All anti BCH say they are pro BCH That is a strong argument. Lol

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 19:59:04
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/g01bqnq/

All I am talking are the facts of Amaury actions, harmful and dictator. You talk like they dont exist. When I give facts, your response is, same arguments other anti bch say. That is not an explanation. That is called a diversion/deflection. Answer is armucjy: 1. Giving reasons why he wants to increase confirmation times? And the benefit? 2. Is he blocking all other dev code? 3. Is he saying he is changing the code regardless? That is a start.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 19:58:00
/r/btc/comments/i207yk/btc_or_is_it_bch/g015ywy/

Did not read all the comments, but this sub was started before the split because of everyone getting banned on r/bitcoin wanting to scale on chain. If there would have been 2mb blocks we would have easily seen 50k btc in 2017

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 19:00:49
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/g010xbc/

Well then, I am glad to hear we are on the same team!!!👏👏👏 Let me explain the facts I know and my conclusions. we have a dev TEAM. When one team member puts forward tested code and Amury disregards it and creates his own with features that will cause problems. Refuses to discuss, then said his solution will be implemented regardless of the majority opposition. That is NOT a team member. And sure as Fcxk no leader. My conclusion is he is intentionally trying to hurt BCH. At a minimum, he is being a dictator AND someone pushing code that will hurt BCH, whatever brain power he had has left the building. Or, if he still has brain power, and doing this, reasonable conclusion is he is trying to destroy BCH. Regardless with best benefit of good intentions, he needs to go asap. Worst, he needs to go ASAP.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 18:11:47
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/g00ywe2/

Pro BCH Anti-Dictator

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 17:52:30
/r/btc/comments/i0q0rw/who_benefits_from_a_split_in_bitcoin_cash_miners/g00yeh0/

Well we can avoid talking about the facts, but if you are interested. Many long dissertations by other devs, to summarize: 1. Armery drift correction will increase confirmation times, not good. 2. Large majority does not want this, and Armury refuses to discuss. 3. Amuchery will unilaterally make the change he desires That is what you call a dictator

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 17:47:50
/r/btc/comments/i0q0rw/who_benefits_from_a_split_in_bitcoin_cash_miners/g00w2a6/

Yeah ok, Amuckery is behaving like a dictator. Pushing drift code that will kill.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 17:25:43
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/g00vwwy/

I am not attacking BCH, I am trying to save it from a dictator. Amuchery is trying to do more than divide, he is trying to destroy BCH. You are trying to destroy BCH by supporting Amrury becoming a dictator.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 17:24:17
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/g0005dk/

I am lost, I know that petition will not change anything, but more awareness to not accept this will. Do you like one person having majority control behaving like a dictator?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 12:58:04
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/fzzzz93/

I guess you like living under a dictatorship? Why is there such a weak human condition to not speak up to a dictator?? And so programmed to support the dictator??. It seems like ppl would rather eat feces just because someone in a higher position says to eat it. We seem afraid to say, No I wont eat that, we just eat it and keep our mouth shut. But, when someone says hey, don't eat the feces, its not good for you, eat fresh vegetables. We will now speak up to defend eating feces and say "give it a rest". Then we act all superior "son". I am sure what is what your mommy calls you when she yells at you to get out of the basement. (How did that comment help our discussion?) But we will eat feces gladly.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 12:56:37
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/fzzkzoj/

Thank you, I am. But you encouragement is making me think I need to do more. When people gain control and act like a dictator, they need to be removed. You are shilling animosity. How? Amruarry is dictating a change no one wants, will not have a reasonable discussion absolutely his way or nothing. That is what creates animosity, and you are promoting that by approving that behavior. 🎤 The work my ass off is to make everyone very aware of his dictator moves to destroy BCH by creating animosity in the community.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 10:50:31
/r/btc/comments/i1mvuy/amaury_history_summary/fzyi1ra/

You are not wrong.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 01:23:09
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/fzyexav/

Hmmmm, Would you like me to respond as a reasonable person you can have a rational conversation with? OR Respond like I am the dictator of this post?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:43:10
/r/btc/comments/i1m8f1/vote_to_remove_the_dictator/fzydhw6/

https://www.change.org/p/bitcoin-cash-community-bitcoin-abc-must-step-down-from-control-of-bitcoin-cash

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:26:02
/r/btc/comments/i17git/please_do_not_radically_change_bitcoin_to_target/fzycwwf/

We need to stop dictators, sign the petition https://www.change.org/p/bitcoin-cash-community-bitcoin-abc-must-step-down-from-control-of-bitcoin-cash

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:19:18
/r/btc/comments/i116i5/sign_the_petition/fzycimc/

Very well said. Notice that there is Not one attempt to even spin an argument in favor of long block drift correction. We need to band together and kick Armuary out. It does not matter how well his coding skills WERE. With the current evidence of him promoting longer confirmation times, I can easily justify that his skills are less than zero. I dont want him writing one line of code.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:14:47
/r/btc/comments/i116i5/sign_the_petition/fzybsoy/

You are correct, I am railing pretty hard towards implementing a DAA that will intentionally increase confirmation time. Also, it seems this is being pushed by a very small majority because there are no positive benefits. This is a becoming a dictatorship when a very small minority unilaterally control the decisions and will not discuss it rationally. That is exactly the definition. At the end of the day, if I have to make a choice between a split or this long block DAA, I will choose against a split. Today, I do not have to make that choice, so for now I choose to promote removing Amaury soley due to his dictatorial behavior.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:06:31
/r/btc/comments/i116i5/sign_the_petition/fzv0vk5/

I understand, and will accept this to avoid a split, but this all seems like all downsides. Drift correction will be accomplished by doing a better job of making 10min blocks, this makes them longer. Here are the downsides I see if this gets added in the Aug 15 lockdown of upgrade changes: 1. This will make block times longer. I have never heard anyone argue for a feature that making confirmation times Longer. 2. It seems like the majority of the community is opposed, and then a larger portion does not see any real benefit 3. The ones pushing for drift correction (longer blocks) are not willing to explain, discuss, debate the reasons for the change 4. This change is an example of BCH becoming a dictatorship instead of a community. 5. This will scare off developers as they can not trust stable code.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 09:54:25
/r/btc/comments/i0oq4s/70_speakers_confirmed_for_165hr_bitcoin_cash/fzuzanf/

I understand we should promote the positive and minimize the negative. I wish we did not create negatives, just to create negatives. It is like you are treating the speakers like a group of clueless bankers getting ready to invest and we do not want to air our dirty laundry to scare them off. I believe they All want BCH to succeed. I believe they all have invested in BCH. I think they all understand POW, Block times, DAA, the emergency DAA, the gaming of BCH hashrate. Why would we Not want their advice on this issue too? (Unless there is an effort to force thru a nefarious change in stealth mode) If we dont want their advice on BCH, exactly what are they speaking about?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 09:39:03
/r/btc/comments/i116i5/sign_the_petition/fzurjtn/

IF, IF the max time is 12 min, ok, I guess. This will create longer long block times than today. Being for drift is agreeing that: Yes, I will accept some new record long block times, but our historical avg block time is now 10 min. One of those hurts BCH and the other does not provide any benefit

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 08:12:09
/r/btc/comments/i0nty0/correcting_for_historical_drift_lets_do_this_and/fzuquee/

You sound a little biased

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 08:02:43
/r/btc/comments/i116i5/sign_the_petition/fztyiai/

Thats stupid. Ok I will raise you one Lets dictate a change, that nobody wants and will hurt BCH. That is stupider.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 00:48:36
/r/btc/comments/i0nty0/correcting_for_historical_drift_lets_do_this_and/fztu6vt/

The Reason is: Amuckery wants to destroy BCH. Period. If that is NOT the case, he needs to explain AND convince significant amount of people that Drift correction is good and do it quickly. He is either on a revenge mission, or he has been paid to do so or both. How is it possible that one person can hijack the entire BCH development? We knew this would happen. How are we not prepared to deal with this. Can someone please start some petition to remove him from ABC and the BCH dev group? This needs to be done ASAP. EDIT Here is the petition: https://www.change.org/p/bitcoin-cash-community-bitcoin-abc-must-step-down-from-control-of-bitcoin-cash

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 00:02:09
/r/btc/comments/i0oq4s/70_speakers_confirmed_for_165hr_bitcoin_cash/fztd2al/

Class? We need to show some class? Are you kidding me???? We are being forced to split over a make believe drift issue, and the ones promoting it refuse to explain why. It is clear Amuckery is intentionally trying to single handedly destroy BCH because he is seeking revenge, and no one can stop him. He is mad about not getting his forced funding, so he is going to burn the house down. This one guy is going to destroy BCH, and the entire community can not stop him? And you say shhhh, lets show some class??? There is one main danger right now to the growth of BCH and you say to ignore it, be quiet, dont ask anyone to discuss it? And that is showing class? You are gauche

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 21:21:29
/r/btc/comments/i0oq4s/70_speakers_confirmed_for_165hr_bitcoin_cash/fztbuot/

Hmmmmmmm, what are they going to be talking about? Making moonshine and knitting masks from hemp fibers, OR will they be there to promote LTC, DOGE & BTG? /s I thought the topic was BCH? There is a possibility of serious damage to BCH with a split over this stupid drift stuff. Yea, not important better not discuss, its just two little kids fighting over Yugioh cards.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 21:11:13
/r/btc/comments/i0oq4s/70_speakers_confirmed_for_165hr_bitcoin_cash/fzszd5d/

I think every speaker must state their position on the drift hulabaloo before they give their speech

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 19:39:06
/r/btc/comments/i0q0rw/who_benefits_from_a_split_in_bitcoin_cash_miners/fzsz4j3/

Again another situation that stranger than fiction. This drift BS, is about like someone wanting to split over a different shade of green for the logo. Or one group wants a 15 degree slant and the other wants a 17 degree slant on the logo. I think this is clear retaliation by Anuchery to hurt BCH

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 19:36:59
/r/btc/comments/i0bvo7/this_is_what_not_invented_here_syndrome_sounds/fzp81c0/

Thanks, so I know there are some tx/sec limitations, if 1000mph is our ideal speed, knowing the improvements that we can add, what is the theoretical future upper limit of BCH? That is, if we make all the improvements we know we can make, even then, Bch will never exceed. ???? Mph? What is the top theoretical speed?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 01:09:06
/r/btc/comments/i0bvo7/this_is_what_not_invented_here_syndrome_sounds/fzp588w/

I watched that part That was sad And the part about wanting to make a car go 1000 mph. WTH? Was he implying that no matter what improvements are made, BCH will never be scaled to be electronic cash for the world.???? How is BCH being held hostage by him?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 00:34:45
/r/btc/comments/i0bvo7/this_is_what_not_invented_here_syndrome_sounds/fzp49fg/

Ok, everyone is trying to figure out how to solve this. First, if you have a member with nefarious, ulterior motives, you are not going to get them to play nice. Or explain their position. (What if someone was always unhappy about his compensation? What if recent attempts by this person to increase his compensation was stopped. Maybe Blockstream is bribing him to sabotage BCH. Maybe he is just mad he did not get his way before, so he is going to take revenge??? I have no idea, but these actions have no logic.) So here is the solution: 1. Only roadmap items go into upgrades. 2. There must be agreement (vote) to add/remove from roadmap 3. If there is a security flaw or some other emergency correction needed, still a quick straw poll from developers Fixed. You are welcome 😁

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 30, 2020 00:23:27
/r/btc/comments/i0cqn8/i_am_in_always_right_syndrome/fzozyit/

Search Drift Amerchery

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 23:36:01
/r/btc/comments/i0d96b/where_does_the_us_money_dollar_come_from_does_it/fzoz1wd/

You know, never really thought about this. For the digital, I just thought they created it out of thin air in a ledger and bought bonds from the US govt. then all digital dollars are traced back to that us bond purchase. I am sure there is tracing to say it was from a cash or digital deposit. Look forward to the answers that get posted here.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 23:26:27
/r/nashville/comments/hzsnjc/i_hate_to_be_that_guy_but_with_all_things/fznmauu/

I agree, people should have freedom to do what they wish with their own body, especially in the privacy of their own home. ***as long as there is no danger or harm to others*** (And not promoting suicide etc) But anyone here that is 35-40+ that had that High School friend that smoked VERY regularly, they are not the same. (I mean they struggle to make complete sentences) you know I am right dude , like dude u know dude waaay dude cmon, wow dude. But you know, there are no negative effects. This is sortof like the lottery, only real beneficiary is the state and a few businesses, children will loose on this. Imagine children being in a home with parents that are high all the time. Or drunk all the time or you name it. I know we can find bad anywhere we look, even in the churches. I guess I am a little divided, get govt out of my business, war on drugs is a farce, but I dont want to promote something that can be destructive to a family, but we can't make everything illegal that one believes is bad. I guess we have to err on the side of personal freedoms. Do we want to legalize prostitution? What about marriage to more than one spouse? What about marriage to animals? I know I am getting ridiculous, But, I mean where do we stop? There are people probably within 50 miles of you that think all of that is perfectly ok. If you have read this far, you know I am not sure how we should go on this. Maybe we don't make legal, but any fines are minimal and only when things seem to get out of hand. Then who determines what point that is.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/nashville on July 29, 2020 16:11:43
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzmnlpt/

Gotcha, I believe consequences would make our long block times longer. Do you mind sharing what are the consequences of adding drift correction?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 11:26:51
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzmn5bv/

Correct, thank you. Any speculation to add as why Amuaery is pushing this?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 11:22:42
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzmmtht/

Thanks! It would be interesting to know. This sure "seems" nefarious.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 11:19:44
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzm4i9n/

Thanks, from all the comments, it looks like overwhelming, no one really believes drift correction is necessary. So does anyone want to speculate why ppl are pushing this?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 08:18:52
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzm3ltq/

Ok, I can see that on time based smart contracts. But that would be for smart contracts way in the past, which dont exist. The smart thing todo would be to use a blocktime based upon history, instead of 10 min in the smart contracts. I think adjusting for drift will actually make our long blocktimes worse.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 08:07:43
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzm2xkk/

Thanks. I understand your point. I just mentioned Avalanche being a little silly. This post was not suppose to be about Avalanche, but I really don't see any downside to Avalanche. Unless you were trying to double spend.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 07:58:51
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzm2gsx/

Thanks. Any speculation why there is a push for drift correction?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 07:52:40
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzm26qu/

Thank You. I understand drift. Seems like your answer was justifying drift was assumed in the original design, and no need to worry about it. Not sure anything in the whitepaper other than the DAA roughly every 2 weeks to attempt to keep the blocks at 10 min. There is nothing in whitepaper about maintaining overall 10 min average life history. It was only an adjustment to keep the next two weeks at 10 minute average, not an adjustment to make lifetime avg 10 min. The whitepaper only cared about an adjustment to keep current blocks at 10 min. It seems like there is an effort to manufacture a problem.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 07:48:59
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzleim0/

Thank You, so you against the drift correction. You did say maybe minimal benefits. Do you mind elaborating? (I honestly dont see any benefit). Thanks

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 01:35:52
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzld8h4/

So you can use a thesaurus, great. Can you explain the benefits of correcting the drift? My question is, this Drift has never appeared in the narrative for over a decennium. So why now? What is the benefit?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 01:19:03
/r/btc/comments/hzn6k5/any_reason_drift_shouldnt_be_dismissed_outright/fzlc58o/

What is this time Vampire you speak of? Is that Count Driftalot?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 29, 2020 01:04:54
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzl4a4r/

Thank you for your comments. I sort of thrown avalanche in there for fun. I think Avalanche has some great strategies, I dont see any downside. Honestly, what are the benefits? Dont say we get back to avg blocktime of 10 min, this is a feature/result, not the benefit? To boobler: I really hate the ignorant comments: "your a troll" instead of offering a rational logical explanation. My idiotic SPECULATION that the purpose was to slow down blocks so btc halving could be reduced before bch is the only crazy thing I could dream up.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 28, 2020 23:36:47
/r/btc/comments/hzsmux/d_r_i_f_t/fzl3dwv/

Something does not pass the sniff test? Ask questions? Answer: "your a troll"

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 28, 2020 23:27:47
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz9l2m7/

Thank You very much for explaining. I do understand. Using process control algorithms for this "seems" like a good application. We all believe that math can solve our problems, but sometimes we get stuck on the wrong strategy. Process Control algorithms are based upon limits for rates of change into and out of defined systems. These control systems know what is going in and out of the system and they control at least one and know both. And sometimes control both. We dont control hashrate input. We cant even measure what is going in, we only see the result of that input, AFTER the fact and WAY after to know for sure. The first big change we are wondering if the fast or slow block is due to delta hashrate OR just statistical luck, so our feedback is very slow. I think the BCH DAA situation is very similar to this control system example: Imagine you have a cylindrical tank of water. The tank is 12inches in diameter and 200 feet tall. At the top of the tank there are Twenty different 6 inch pipes that can all add water to the tank. All those input pipes are controlled by 20 unknown people that can add as much or as little they want, whenever they want. We can not see the water going in the tank, we only know the tank level. At the bottom of the tank, there is one 12 inch valve that WE control. Imagine that WE are assigned to keep the level of water in the tank to 10 feet. Imagine that the only way to know the current level of the tank is that info must be passed thru 3 people before you know the tank level. Imagine that these 3 people can pass one note once every 10 min. ( 1 to 2, then 2 to 3, then 3 to you) When we get the level of the tank, the information we have is now 30 minutes old, and now we can make one change to the valve and we have to wait at least 10 minutes before we can make another change. Now imagine you get paid a 100 Trillion dollars if you can keep the tank level between 3 and 20 feet. Now imagine that the 20 unknown people that control the water going in can win the 100 Trillion dollars if you fail. Our 10 minute block time is like the 10 foot level in that tank. Controlling the 12 inch outlet valve to control the level is the DAA.ver.? And the input water is the hashrate. This example may seem a little exaggerated, but reality is a little more difficult than the example when you throw in the hour long blocks to the delay in the feedback of the tank level. I do not believe "constant hashrate" is a safe, or realistic assumption. The only way any version of a DAA could produce consistent 10 minute blocks is that the people controlling the 20 valves putting water in the tank would need to all be working together to maintain a 10 foot level in the tank. I dont believe any version of a DAA could make that situation with the water tank work. The solution to consistent 10 minutes blocks is easy, letting go of the DAA, or any version of it is the challenge.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 22:58:20
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz8oqnx/

So how will that keep hashrate from disappearing?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 17:40:27
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz8h0fh/

Thank you. So, if we assume stable hashrate for 2 weeks, then we loose 90% hashrate, what would blocktime be for next, 2nd and 3rd blocktimes be, (on average) be with each new method?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 16:48:06
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz7yrz7/

Thanks for replying "The problem with the current DAA oscillation is that the events are not independent: because miners are gaming the difficulty." Exactly. I read thru the bobtail, briefly. I am not so sure that it would eliminate an hour block if 90% of the hashrate suddenly disappeared. This is what we need to fix, if not all we are doing is make the problem, a not as big of a problem.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 14:55:17
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz7oyb1/

You might be right, we should stop this!

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 13:28:35
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz7cjj9/

Yes, I know. I mean WTH? Are we really happy with settling with, well BTCcore has same problem. I am pushing for people to realize: if it is broke, lets fix it. There are a couple of ways to eliminate that problem, and relatively easy. We have tons of smart people, why are we are stuck on tweaking a feature that wont ever fix the problem of block time swings due to a miner that can 5x the hashrate up or down at will? The DAA was Never designed to protect against this. I believe OUR goal should be to create a system that generates 10 min blocktime based upon POW. Bitcoin was designed for the minority chain to die, it was not design to protect against the problems we have today. These are the problems that created the reason for this thread and these proposed changes. We are not going to ever produce EXACTLY 10 min blocks all the time. But we can eliminate the 30 min blocks and definitely the 1 hour blocks. Or we can burn the house down 😢.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 11:34:37
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz796i5/

So you believe that either one of those will eliminate 1 hour blocks?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 11:02:09
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz77g9h/

I do not believe either one of these will help. You were at 5 hours, do you believe that 3 hours will be any better??? This fight over negligible improvements seems like sabotage.

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 10:44:56
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz774ic/

Thanks for all your open communication. Would you mind elaborating a little why you believe Amaury wants a split? This probably deserves its own thread, but just a summary. (Only reason I can dream up is he wants to hurt BCH)

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 10:41:36
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz6m5sp/

Thank you for the explanation. So you believe both solutions will eliminate the 1 hour block-time?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 05:52:22
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz67k5g/

Vote by mob rule is not always best result. And, based upon your brief summary of each, "drift protection". Sorry to sound so harsh, but both sound like crap ideas/goals. Any of these changes will kill this project. 1. What is the benefit (today or in the future) to be working on the exact block# today based upon/predicted by the start date of 2009 with 10 min average blocks? None that I know of or could imagine. I have never heard anyone complain that we are working on a block too far out in future. No one really complains about 10 sec blocks. The problem is not 14 or 15 minute blocks. The problem is to eliminate the 1 or 2 hour blocks. OUR goal should be to produce blocks within 5 to 15 min confirmation times.. 2. WE need to come to the realization that the DAA was never designed to work well with more than one coin with same hash function. Any tweaks to the DAA may improve, but any form of a DAA will never, NEVER produce 10 minute blocks without these wild swings. (Especially when hashrate can 5x for a few hours then disappear) I dont think this idea has matured enough to be in next upgrade. Our goal should be to produce 10 min blocks +/- 5 minutes. The solution will be outside of this DAA concept, because keeping the DAA eliminates the possibility of success. To Summarize, the DAA is basically trying to GUESS the difficulty level to produce 10 min blocks. The goal is to guess the winning difficulty not to create 10 min block times. I believe the goal should be to produce 10 min blocks, regardless of the hash/difficulty. So, how would/could we design this new system to determine which miner gets awarded the block reward at 10 minutes/every 10 minutes?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 25, 2020 01:53:24
/r/btc/comments/hx7h90/aserti3_vs_grasberg_in_condensed_integeronly/fz5rm3b/

Is there anyway to just put this to a test, let the results decide and leave the opinions & EGOs behind?

Commented by /u/steve_m0 in /r/btc on July 24, 2020 22:45:52
Top