Oh, certainly you do need permission to innovate in BSV ecosystem.
Because if Certain individual that is not Satoshi™ doesn’t like it, he will sue you.
He has a “right” to do so, because of BSV’s cancerous license. But he might sue you regardless as he already did multiple times.
Your whole BSV project is a cancer on Bitcoin and a cancer on cryptocurrency world. You yourself are a cancer cell, designed to either destroy or infect as many other healthy cells as possible.
It’s clear you didn’t so much as read the MIT licence.
One day when the need to slay BSV trolls has subsided, I challenge you to sit down and read the GPL, lmao, yes its okay to get sidetracked, but once you slay off a few more trolls on the reddit sit back down and get back into trying to read the gpl.
You can’t. I’m telling you- you can’t finish reading the gnu gpl3. It’s beyond you.
Reason being is that anarcho-socialistic death by committee is intentionally meant to be mind numbing so that nobody else gets involved. Be it the tenured professor or the guy online presiding over tomes of self regulation, its purposefully meant to be obtuse trash.
To promote the fear of getting sued for building out on peer to peer cash is a coward’s game.
To claim encumbrance from licensing which one doesn’t need to use is intentional misdirection.
This isn’t how things work in BU, so such a decision process for a new coin launched & maintained by BU should 100% be reflected accurately in BU’s Articles. In my humble opinion.
This argument makes no sense. This new cryptocurrency is not the BU organization. It can have separate rules. And these separate rules can be defined by a BUIP, without those new rules being applied to the BU org as a whole.
To apply your view to BU’s involvement in BCH, you are basically saying that since BU develops in BCH, the new CHIP process has defacto changed our Articles – or even more dangerously, since that is not allowed without a supermajority as per the Articles, we can’t participate in the CHIP process.
To apply your view to democracies in general, you are basically saying that no democracy can ever delegate any authority. All traffic violations and other minor infractions would have to be enforced by a legislative decision.
The reality is you don’t need permission, it is permissionless regardless of what one ego and his cult say.
We do need permission to use Imaginary Property, but that’s a feature of the jurisdiction you live in, not BSV. It is true the Bitcoin Association is using the same rule set to ensure the protocol is not changed by special interests and that everybody plays by the same rules when using the blockchain.
I’m watching closely to see how that goes.
Huh.
There is no “win” or “defeat” here.
The game was set up from the beginning.
It was clear to me since I joined this discussion, that Andrew will pursue his goal regardless and people will follow him.
I basically joined this discussion for fun, because I had nothing better to do in the moment.
Thanks to cryptocurrency, I understand how people (as a mass) work. People do not follow reason. People follow people.
This is the same reason why your shilling endeavour was partially successful: Divide and Conquer works, propaganda works, censorship works, because people generally do not think, people follow people who claim they have a vision - alphas, but if alpha is not available, they follow the dominant opinion (the herd).
By pretending that certain opinion is the dominant opinion and purchasing multiple shill specimen as you, public opinion can be easily swayed. Most of the time. Sometimes it does not work or only works partially.
BCH was lucky that people like me were there in 2018, because I am generally unable to follow so I can easily see through all your bullshit.
Odds are pretty high you haven’t finished the bitcoin whitepaper yet
Yes, an incredible success. Tiny blocks, collapsing txs count and still a ridiculous blocksize limit after years of ‘developing’. Not to forget your built-in ransomware functions that will lead to a ban on the marketplaces. Your devs are devaluators.
I don’t believe you’ve understood my argument here. The other two paragraphs in your post are just further extrapolations of this misunderstanding.
I argued that this arrangement of special BUIPs which apply to the new cryptocurrency (and which can be passed solely with the BU Developer’s affirmation instead of the usual rules applying to BUIPs currently, should be reflected in the Articles.
That’s surely not too much to ask, for these projects are - at least according to your own view - under BU’s power of definition via BUIPs.
I say, with the passage of BUIP166, there is effectively a new kind of BUIP - one which you can implement at your discretion and at BU’s expense on your new coin, even against the membership’s expressed vote.
Your quoted text above is effectively just handwaving around this fact, but I’m restating it to make my view absolutely clear here.
You are putting a strawman in my mouth here.
The CHIP process doesn’t affect BU’s project processes as described by the Articles and BUIPs in the slightest.
Nobody claimed that it should. BU continues to be able to put out whatever software it wishes as determined by its membership votes. Only that these membership votes, as described in the Articles, will not be effective on this new coin being maintained by BU.
Thus conclude my comments here on this BUIP.
I have a lot of experience fighting external infiltrators as a moderator of /r/btc and in my professional expertise, bitsko, Zarathustra and other well known BSV supporters should be permanently removed from participating both in these forums and Bitcoin Unlimited project, without the possibility of coming back.
Their aim is only to hurt Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Cash.
And they already succeeded in helping destroying or crippling BU right now.
If they are not removed, this project will be further sabotaged until it is completely obliterated.
We are a small team currently in “stealth mode” working on projects fusing business and blockchain use-cases and are especially keen on Andrew Stone’s proposal; Interesting, advantageous, and crucial for the evolutionary progress of the BCH Blockchain. We look at it as a petri-dish to test new approaches and solutions under real-life conditions. Our special attention found the new group token feature Andrew already developed very interesting to explore. We highly value and support this proposal.
This BUIP getting a lot of dislike from the broader community, and Roger makes a guest appearance too.
Well obviously.
Until 18th may 2021, BU was de-facto a BCH project.
After the vote goes through, BU will be a project competing with BCH.
What did “Bitcoin Unlimited” represent then? Money for the people, global cash, freedom from bankers.
What will “Bitcoin Unlimited” represent now? Another experimental shitcoin that will not achieve anything, because it is an effective cash-grab attempt that was not necessary at all.
All experimental features could have been done on a huge global testnet with hundreds of machines/cheap VPSes and clouds, new coin was never needed.
I do not understand why you keep restating this point. This testnet you are requesting has been, as others have already pointed out, operating and available since 2020.
So?
There is even less need for a new coin.
You cannot prove your worth by launching a new coin in a market that is not interested in technological progress, but speculation instead.
I am not disagreeing with your reasoning on proving value. What I do not understand your counter suggestion for an action to take. You are suggesting that a testnet be used to demonstrate new features. The lack of success with a testnet being used to demonstrate new features is a part of the reason why Andrew has made this BUIP.
Your suggested solution is to retry what the author has already done and deemed a failure. This is what I do not understand.
BU was an alternative to Core meant to gain hashrate supermajority on BTC network.
BCH was the approach after that failed.
BCH leadership then politicked with feature inclusion in order to fork a developer.
BCH leadership then forked itself again over money.
the few left to pick up the pieces turned it into what it is today
BU as an organisation is much more durable than BCH, despite all the money being thrown at BCH.
The story of BCH is one of successive failures and recursive forking and I’m happy to see BU crawl out from under that rock even if its only to serve BCH’s interests by proxy.
BCH is near meaningless in terms of its goal to realize peer to peer cash for the world. Being plugged into ETH wont really change that, perhaps some fleeting interest on the way down.
BCH would be a better fit as a paul storzc sidechain on BTC. The morals and values of the project are similar, with one (BCH) being willing to allow greater throughput maybe.
The lesser chain woes would be eliminated; all the troubles in dealing with wither and intermittent, bursty block production would be gone.
merge-mining bch allows for a simplification of the mining game as well. no more altruism needed. much more cost effective.
Same licence anyways right?
I would argue that the only thing anyone here has to oppose such an arrangement is their pride.
A merge-mined BTC sidechain plugged into ETH would be good shit
it showed ‘flagged by the community’ to me.