@shadders is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out shadders's activities

Shadpress

visit channel home
Total Economy: 0.31 USD

Making the world ready for Bitcoin - a short statement from Bitcoin SV's Technical Director

This is a post originally publiished on yours.org in September 2018 shortly after the announcement that the Bitcoin SV project was formed. I'm moving all of my previous articles here to powpress.

Some followup thoughts based on this thread from reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9fwe7i/an_average_joes_questions_regarding_the_bitcion/

There are currently competing visions for the Bitcoin Cash development road map. Some argue that we do not need to raise block size because the demand (transaction volume) is not there yet. Others want to raise it well ahead of demand.

If we can show the world two things; First Bitcoin Cash can handle all the transactions you can throw at us. Second, 0-conf ( a.k.a. instant transactions ) are safe and secure, then we have a competitive advantage that no other blockchain can match. In fact we already have a competitive advantage that no other payment method can match. When the world understands these two things it will be ready to adopt Bitcoin on a global scale.

We will have demonstrated that Bitcoin Cash is ready for global commerce and that massively scaled businesses can safely invest in the platform. Bitcoin Cash is the ONLY blockchain that is embracing a scaling plan that can work and work NOW. It is the fast, instant and global cash solution that Bitcoin was always meant to be.

By restricting the transaction volume to what we can allegedly 'safely' handle now we are sending a message to the world that we do not have confidence in our network. We are saying that we do not have confidence in the ability of miners, who are the pillar of our network, to respond to demand. That we do not have confidence in Nakamoto consensus to solve the problem of disparate capability. Our job is not to restrict miners but to support and enable them in their role as a critical foundation in a global cash system.

We must take the opportunity to show business what Bitcoin is capable of and to do that we MUST allow our miners to rise to the challenge and motivate them to take charge of this most critical moment in Bitcoin's evolution.

That is all...  

powered by powpress
link Tip
Share
tx
translate
unwriter tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
token_squatting tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
hennypenny tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
stevepatterson tipped:
0.19 USD
1 year ago
kpdad72 tipped:
0.08 USD
1 year ago
xhliu tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
I have some rather serious questions about the new NodeSV release, specifically regarding 0-value outputs. Can we form a BitCoin Protocol + NodeSV Channel to discuss all things Layer 1? Without a solid foundation, and a hierarchy of experts (peer review) being able to ask the whole community the hardest of questions which might prevent some important people from switching to BSV, I think we all lose momentum. I know there's Metanet ICU but I'd rather see a ephemeral group happen. Nominate Shadders to be the one to form it as most knowledgable at layer 1. "Hand of the King(s)" and all that jazz. Anyone else feel this is important? Would love to see@unwriter@xhliu@deanlittle@cosmosstag@ryanxcharles and really ANYONE who wants to talk plumbing and meaning of money. Not saying these cats have to be the one to answer everyones questions, but some questions might need to go up the chain a bit.
shadders replied:
cosmosstag replied:
Thanks I'm usually on Twetch. I will be happy to answer any questions. Peer review is not a good solution because we don't know how many bitcoins each person has.
john replied:
Probably one of the very best articles about Einstein, but has to do with peer review. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2117822 Total aside for the Physics: I wonder if using Cayley-Dickson algebras would fix Einstein & Rosen's cylindrical plane coordinates singularity discrepancy? For instance, a vector pointing in the "north pole" of a sphere could be assigned 4 different values based on "longitudinal" orthogonals (towards, away, left and right). Or perhaps another way to look at it, is "zero" might have 4 values for vector (0,1), along with 16 total (4 versions of each identity vector in the yz plane. But the Physics world is enamored with vector analysis (which split from somewhat new quaternions in late 1800s before Einstein's works). I like Garrett Lisi's mindset, but dislike e8 as the math of choice. The division algebras all fit nicely together, so why not attempt to re-do all of physics using them. Coders do-- when programming games. What's good for a computer is probably good for us humans too-- in the field of logic. The basis for this line of thinking stems from considering that there is no such thing as zero in space-time. Every BitCoin must have a satoshi, or it is not a true BitCoin, as BitCoin is a collection of 2.1 quadrillion points (but UTXO sets) which MUST be kept by protocol by the Nodes or else they don't get paid. BitCoin has no zero; when a sat-less output is introduced either via FALSE RETURN or ZST/ZSOs, it is not required to be kept, thus perhaps by definition it is outside BitCoin (or Layer 1 if one prefers that lingo). Wouldn't it be great if Physics and BitCoin were in agreement? As if BitCoin could get any MORE elegant than it already is! I don't proclaim to have the answers, but if one can hear other's answers it's easier to pick and combine, no? Independent of stature and wealth.
john replied:
To be clear, the "version" of (0,1) {x = 0} would have a "tail" pointing in the xz plane. That tail would have no scalar value (not even 1), but would retain a directional value in case (0,1) needs to interact with other algebraic terms. In other words, we tend to use scalars without coordinates, but shouldn't we then also be able to have coordinates without scalar values attached? AKA the invisible "arrowhead" of the vector-- sans the "stick". Thus multiplying (0,1) by "j" (one of Hamilton's orthogonal operators) would not change (0,1) at all, but would spin it on it's axis. From most observational directions, a Native American's arrow doesn't look any different when spun 90 degrees (by "j"), but it in fact IS different. One can arrive at THIS level of reasoning by attempting to act on an identity vector with the sqrt(-1) version {say "j" acting on vector (1,0) } which does not change it 90 degrees, but instead spins it. Hamilton says this spin done twice is -1 the scalar. But the (1,0) vector wouldn't really change direction, it would still look like (1,0) to most outside observation. But is it? We only have Hamilton's opinion, that j^2 = -1. This needs peer review! LOL.
cosmosstag replied:
Thank you for the article. Peer review is good for science, but not for entrepreneurship. Science has to do with knowledge that we can all agree on. Entrepreneurship has to do with differential knowledge, ie what you know that others do not. When you form a business, you bet on your own knowledge. You do not submit your business model for peer review. There is no agreement on who your peers are. Some people will say that you are a nobody but you say that you are very important. In Bitcoin it is better to bet your business on the protocols you invent, not to gain agreement with others beforehand. Interesting musings on physics and math, I don't know.
john replied:
I think about this topic (not to gain agreement beforehand) a lot, lately, (similar to a lifelong internal back-and-forth on the Parable of the Talents' Servant #3) and just a few years ago I'd have been in the same camp. But the last 2 years has made me challenge everything I think I knew. Unsure of any answers, but have always run life as an experiment, and now is no different, so will let you know how it turns out someday. But what I can say is, having a lot in the tank creates nice buffer. Copy me and beat me, and I'll be flattered, then annoyed, then just move on to the next wide open thing with even MORE in the tank. Wisdom is like glyphosate, it accumulates, and so long as there's sanity it allows one to keep coming back as if was a reserve battery of storage. Another way to look at it, there's so much to do in BitCoin, so much wide open space from here, the only way to lose is to stop and coast on success. Experimental Evidence? People don't believe a word out of CSW's mouth 12 years after creating transformative BitCoin, that's almost evidence one can do and say almost anything one wants and get away with it. They can only copy and surpass you if you stop improving, and they'll always have a late start bc until success they won't believe what you're doing is worth a shit anyway, even when it's right in front of them. The guy won't sign the coins, to show his riches, so no one believes him. One of modern man's greatest experiments in human sociology. Wright Brothers same. Doubt all the way up until they flew in a stadium in front of a king-- and even then the Smithsonian was trying to give credit to a guy (Langley) with a sexier resume all the way thru 1948 and beyond. If the Wrights had pushed thru to airlines or some other business, they'd never have had to worry about whether their patent held up, or who got what credit. Einstein's coolest papers are probably those in the 1930s, ER, ESR, the one in the article. If his doubts about Copenhagen interpretaton end up being correct, he'll still be the world's best LIVING Physicist in 2020 and beyond. Even if his 1930s stuff is wrong, he got to the heart of the matter like no one else. Went down swinging when everyone was saying he was a has-been. Keep on Truckin? Keep on Tweekin'
"We will have demonstrated that Bitcoin Cash is ready for global commerce and that massively scaled businesses can safely invest in the platform." Nothing is more expensive than a missed opportunity. Bitcoin Cash will learn the hard way.