They’re even smaller than the tiny BTC blocks.
This is beyond joke level.
I am not even going to counter. You are destroying your credibility enough.
I would recommend for any serious reader to take everything known BSV supporters such as Zarathustra and bitsko say with a thick grain of salt.
Yes. That is his intention for the new coin.
Well hold on now. It has always been a part of the BUIP process to request changes. I am not editing the BUIP with my comments. i was suggesting a change be made for clarification because the current wording does not match what was explicitly described later as the intent.
Of course, the window for comments has closed so i am a little late. I will probably have to make a BUIP for the next round of voting in order to amend the language of this BUIP.
sure, i understand that position
1 Like
Yes, BCH development is beyond joke level. BU showed you years ago that a 1 GB limit is no problem. Years later you are still on your joke level.
I think that is always a valid concern but it’s not as though we’re giving away all power to Andrew, it’s only additional merge authority for a specific side project. This new project will still be under the BU community umbrella and could be easily cancelled by passing a new BUIP. So, while today there may be a small majority support, that support can easily evaporate based on how the project is run in the months ahead. So I’m not seeing any big structural danger or even a slippery slope that others seem worried about.
I’m not pointing fingers since I believe everybody here cares about BCH and is doing the best to make it successful, but from my own perspective, BCH is slowly circling the drain. During the last crypto bull market BCH couldn’t break the BTC/BCH ratio downtrend line. That is really significant to me. So against BTC, which is losing market share, BCH was doing relatively worse, even though everybody else sees price rising which is interpreted as success, I see market share and relative interest declining. In my own view if we don’t start leading on the technological front then we’re not going to succeed in the long run. Indeed what is BCH now, just a slightly better version of BSV but with just about as little meaningful innovation? So I see this new project as a way , possibly, of moving forward faster, while proving real features in a meaningful way that a testnet just can’t do. But if we sit and do nothing and take the slow road then I think we will get left behind very soon IMHO.
2 Likes
It’ll be exciting to see to see what can be built on a “batteries included” feature rich, yet scalable UTXO chain. BU as I’ve know it has been experimental and research oriented, so I see how this will be a platform to experiment on.
3 Likes
CHIP process allows a potential 256MB block now? groundbreaking. what a brilliant consensus process to allow for such.
Eagerly awaiting any measure of peer to peer functionality when CHIP, in its eminent wisdom, allows it.
please focus on arguments and not people, and realize this thread is about a vote for a BCH subproject and not whatever weird shit you’re talking about.
You’re all welcome into BSV ecosystem development if you can both stomach it and make the grade.
I don’t honestly think the world needs new protocol features tested on a subproject of BCH (to ultimately not get deployed on BCH) but hey, I’m all for something, anything at this point.
Nobody is welcome into BSV ecosystem, because the license is not Open Source according to definition and also Craig Wrigth can and will (and already did) sue anybody who he doesn’t like or who doesn’t like him.
So no, BSV ecosystem is not for normal people. It’s made exclusively for traitors, selloffs, and totalitarianism-lovers like you.
Nah, it is not 2016 anymore.
By today it is absolutely certain, without a shred of doubt, that there are people in this ecosystem aimed and focused on destroying the whole crypto ecosystem or converting it into something similar to banking system, so it is not a threat to the establishment. People like you and Zahaustra.
Also possibly some others who reside within BU structures right now (regrettably I don’t keep a list of BU members who are pro-BSV, but perhaps I should).
Some people are literal cancer and cannot be allowed to participate in a healthy ecosystem or they will simply turn it inside out, rot it from the inside and ultimately destroy it, like your are doing now by voting in favor of BUIP 166.
1 Like
What?? What happened to Bitcoin being permissionless?
1 Like
He can leave and start his own project, he doesn’t need permission for that. Bitcoin is permissionless after all.
But such people should be excluded from decision-making process, they are too dangerous and literally human poison.
This kind of language is uncalled for.
1 Like
…and fully deserved. Somebody has to say it out loud:
The whole BSV project is a trap designed to catch Big Blockers into litigation hell.
If you fall into the trap, Craig+Calvin will just sue you out of existence (if you cannot afford a lawyer) or their “project” will suck your time out of you until you cannot develop cryptocurrency anymore.
Whole BSV project is poison. Just check their license.
The license, other than not being Open Source, literally says that if you use their code for anything else than developing BSV, it’s illegal [and they can sue you].
Also you should assume they absolutely will sue you, because they already sued a lot of people for completely bullshit reasons.
1 Like
If you release code you can use any license you wish, I don’t understand.
All code from bsv ecosystem is not bsv licence
if you build off of BSV’s fork of bitcoind you have some restrictions, but who is needing or wanting to fork bsv’s fork of bitcoind?
the source the bsv licensed node is open for review, as always
It’s simple.
Either BSV has offered nothing in terms of technology and so the licensing is irrelevant, or, the licensing is upsetting because it protects real innovation and value away from an techno anarchistic wargy of death by committee
1 Like
I don’t like Craig or BSV either but none of that litigious stuff makes them ‘human poison’ get a grip.
In fact, I would not identify any human being with ‘poison’ it smacks of when people say ‘human garbage’.
I have extremely deep understanding of these matters. I actually predicted Craig’s attack on Bitcoin almost 2 years before it happened.
Not only I can easily spot enemies of Bitcoin almost immediately they appear, but to some extent I can predict the future when it comes to cryptocurrency.
So when I call the attackers “human poison”, I know what I am doing.
Thanks for help, “human garbage” is also fitting. But in this particular case “human poison” is more fitting because garbage does not always poison the environment around it, while poison does so.
The BSV license is a special kind of cancer. MIT license gives you the right to sub-license future derivatives of the work as long as the original work retains the MIT license and that license is provided with the work. The BSV license only applies to new code written that is not already under the MIT license. The issue is that there is no rule that the publisher must specify which code or help a 3rd party identify which code is under which license as long as both licenses are provided. This makes touching BSV code a minefield at minimum. The amount of effort it would take to figure out if code you use from that codebase is under the BSV or the MIT license in no way outweighs any rewards you would get from using it. It is the equivalent of getting a free bowl of candy but some of the pieces are poisonous and there is no distinction to which those are. It is far better to get a new bowl of candy somewhere else.
edit: it is questionable if this line of the license is legal
The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
because the BSV license does not cover the entire codebase, only the code that BSV has contributed. This actually makes the license worse than I previously stated. I did not think that was possible…
1 Like