BCHABC officially won hash war

please explain why checkpoints are bad

Miners set their own block limits separate from the consensus limits, if any. Core by contrast has effectively zero capacity, and is kiked out the ass to boot. It is a useless chain for low iq shitstains.

Attached: getfuckednpc.png (1229x192, 47K)

SV can spin up thousands of un-checkpointed ABC nodes and shadow mine a full re-org from there. The legit ABC nodes following checkpoints will fall out of consensus as they become the minority

They are only bad when used incorrectly, in this case it ruined the underlying protocol of Bitcoin as outlined in the Bitcoin whitepaper, so it broke the rules and now BAB is longer bitcoin or even POW anymore.

>BCASH BCASH BCASH
Leave it to some dumb corey to completely fail to understand the hash war.
Basically this guy gets it. Security via checkpoint is retarded for obvious reasons.

Attached: STIFF.jpg (543x500, 99K)

And none of the legit nodes that are at the end of all the commerce and exchanges will give the slightest fuck about un-checkpointed ABC nodes. They will be silently ignored by all of the actual commerce on the chain, and SV will have simply wasted a shitload of resources on completely ineffective attacks.
The only thing it makes sense for SV to do attackwise are simple shallow 51% reorg attacks. These are effective and there's no way to guard against them short of either a POW switch or some form of permissioned mining. But the question is do they really want to crack the security record of their own chain and let the historical record show that the chain was continuously 51% attacked and politically neutral end users lost money on it? That is severely compromising the value of that 4 exahash standing army, as well as basically begging for either a POW switch or permissioned mining.

nothing personel kid

This is complete bullshit. The purpose of checkpoints is to protect against shadow mining attacks from hostile actors bent on deep reorgs to make the entire chain unviable. They meet that purpose with zero drawbacks. If anyone disagrees with them they're free to run up un-checkpointed nodes as highlights, but they have to accept that the vast majority of actors in the space simply want to transact in commerce and don't give a fuck about any of this, so they're not going to follow those uncheckpointed nodes. They care about the ends, not the means. And that's never going to change.

Hostile attack? Or Hash you don't like?

Hostile attack.
If I slit your throat you can fairly describe it as a hostile attack. You do not need to describe it as blade you don't like.
Ends is more important than the means when you're making judgments about ends.

Craig is comedy.

Imagine trying to win an actual currency war with Jow Forums shitposting.

If we both agree to the rules of a deathmatch, slitting my throat is not a hostile attack. Should have backed a fag coin if you can't handle the fight.

Then get on your knees and co-operate, bitch. Problem solved.

>hostile actors
>Adding a moral dimension to hash war game theory
Retard detected

Attached: mmmgrayons.jpg (720x736, 32K)

And a fag coin is what ABC will always be. Afraid of hash, changing the rules when they start to lose.

There's no moral dimension being added to the game theory. It is a simple recognition of material reality. There is attack and defense, even completely absent any evaluation of who is right and wrong. SV is attacking and ABC is defending, and low cost ABC defenses that nullify SV attacks are being painted as "NOT FAIR".
This is stupid and not how you win a war. Either fight it and win, or shut the fuck up, don't bitch about people not playing fair.

Actually they were both BCH before the fork, so both are attackers and defenders. I just so happens ABC ran to the corner and hid like a bitch before the fight even started, not they are being a pussy and acting like the didn't agree to the rules.

I can empathize with some of these SV adherents because I was exactly in their shoes when the Core Cash split originally went down. I couldn't understand why the miners wouldn't push their overwhelming hashpower advantage that had been demonstrated for months on end by signalling, it seemed like a betrayal of the original purpose of the currency and capitulation to an obvious hostile force, and that they hadn't even bothered to try and fulfill their role as defenders of the chain according to nakamoto consensus. It's easy to take a shallow view of the present situation and decide that's exactly what's happening again, with this transient burst of hashing power that has put ABC ahead of SV only for show, and the ABC crew having a tiger by the tail and knowing that if they slack up on the hash rate, that 4 exahash standing army will be able to run shallow reorgs and 51% attack the chain quite easily, and so they're implementing alternative mechanisms.
But at the end of the day what's critical to note is that this primitive perception of hashrate being the only thing that matters was simply never true. Try and put aside the question of which ruleset is idiotic vs sensible and just focus on the fact that there are actors with interests who perceive that they wish to follow a blockchain which adheres to a ruleset, no matter how idiotic or ingenious that ruleset is. Now consider that those actors are going to take whatever measures are most effective to ensure their ability to do that. If they need to pow switch, that's what they'll do. If they need to switch to permissioned mining, that's what they'll do, if they need to use checkpoints, that's what they'll do.

The only way to compete in this context is to build a better platform and attract people to use it so that those who are willing to take whatever measures they must to protect their ruleset eventually realise they need to actually also offer a better platform. And the value of the platform is largely dependent upon the rules of that platform, therefore the bad rulesets need to eventually cede to the good. Hashpower is just one competitive mechanism by which a chain may attack other chains or defend itself, it is not the only one, and it is not the most efficient one. At the end of the day, everything matters and you can't expect your opponent to follow conventions of warfare which guarantee you a victory and compromise their interests when they don't have to, because they're simply not going to do that. Unless you can absolutely force their compliance, and they have no other alternative, you must compete by building a better platform. And SV now, like BCH before, cannot simply force the compliance of the opposition, regardless of whether that opposition is idiotic as was the case when it was segwitcoin core, or much more reasonable as is the case when it's ABC now.

Fair enough, but the checkpoint system will still fail. There is a reason PoW was invented. Checkpointcoin simply will not work because it will be centralized and insecure. I wish both ABC and SV luck in the war, but I firmly believe the team with the most sustained hash will ultimately prevail. The parlor tricks that ABC has tried to use to compensate for a lack of committed hash will not work.

Attached: comfynippon.gif (540x810, 264K)

Fuck back off to reddit, you pre-written text wall making cunt. We all know how Bitcoin works and we know how sad you are about feels, but seriously grow a pair and learn about economics.

This shitcoin broke its critical 0.06btc support because of the fork and is now in absolute shitcoin territory.

How do you predict it will fail? I'm genuinely curious, because at the end of the day I'll cede to the ruleset that actually forces its dominance because that's indisputable rather than the subjective judgments on ABC vs SV that imho would seem to suggest that the ABC ruleset is more technically optimal than the SV ruleset. That simply does not actually seem to be the case here. The simple fact is ABC can put in checkpoints, and the exchanges and the rest of the commerce ecosystem have accepted them, and there's no re-orging past those checkpoints now, period. There is simply no tactical means to accomplish the strategic objective of ABC rollback available to SV.

It will fail because you just fucking split the split of a shitcoin called BTC.

Can you explain to me why you would support SV?
Please don't revert to CSW as Satoshi reasons - he's presented nothing that can be verified yet.
I'm interested in the technical justification for SV as clients are not even able to handle the 128MB block limit being proposed yet.
In regards to parlour tricks, could SV not be accused of this too when they attempted to poison block the network (32MB blocks, non-propagated)?

Nobody wants to touch it or trade with it.

This is the other reason SV are going to lose the war. They have emotional heavy drinkers on staff transparently trying to shill their demonstrably idiotic point of view and it just makes them look like amateur fools. You are literally the homeless guy on the corner shouting at the black bulletproof limousine with a broken bottle of goon that you're a better man than him because if he came out and you had a knife fight to the death, you'd win for sure.
The truth is, you're just a loser and you always will be.

>Fair enough, but the checkpoint system will still fail.
Also, I'd like to add - Satoshi himself was originally the one that added checkpoints to the code. This is not new.

Ahhh, I see, so is right. Good to know.

CHECKPOINTS
WILL
NOT
WORK
The chain that establishes successful PoW-based governance will be the best money. If Craig wins the hash war, Bitcoin advances into a new era of PoW-based governance where the miners run their own in-house software and are no longer beholden to developers. You are right that the miners are indirectly accountable to other stakeholders of the coin, who ultimately have the power to do a PoW change if the miner's governance becomes intolerable (i.e., if the miners started giving themselves coins, etc.), but such a "revolution" against the miners should not be the norm.

wrong and wrong.

Checkpoints already have worked. They're deployed in production on the ABC chain right now and there's nothing you can do about it. You just make yourself seem unhinged and idiotic by disputing material reality.

The code is in stone, it is the whitepaper, and no Chink with hashpower can override the protocol with rented hashpower, they simply fork away, which is what happened with BAB. SV is Bitcoin as described in the paper written by the people who invented it. If you don't like bitcoin, fine, go off and buy tron or any altcoin, but if you try to change bitcoin from what it is, into BTC, BCHABC, BTCDIAMOND, etc., you are not bitcoin, you are a cheap imitation.

>emotional heavy drinkers on staff
that's rich coming from the same camp that had a drunk/high guy on the coinspice livestream openly admit that ABC "fucked up" by adding checkpoints. Too much truth! Shut it down!
The whole "Satoshi added checkpoints in the past" argument is over-simplistic and ignores the fact that such checkpoints were very rare and never used on a regular basis to subvert the will of the sustained hashpower majority.

>material reality
>We already won, goy. It's ogre.
piss off, if you really thought that way there would be nothing to talk about here. You should probably image related

Attached: consider this.jpg (480x547, 31K)

> the will of the sustained hashpower majority.
Then why aren't you back on core? Because that's what the sustained hashpower majority actually is signalling and has been for over a year now.
Or the real question, why is the sustained hashpower majority a better signal than everything else in the world all taken together in context? Like drunken wrecks with obvious personality disorders loudly threatening to confiscate the coins of people who simply disagree with him, threatening to be more ruthless than stalin and mao, running like a crying little bitch to the state when it looks like he's not going to get his way, and blatantly and repeatedly fraudulently attempting to prove he's satoshi when it just ain't fuckin true?

There's no thinking about it, he's just right you dopey cunt.

Attached: sigh.png (213x237, 8K)

Because Core used a softfork to get their way.

That doesn't matter, sustained hashpower majority > everything else in the world, remember?
So go back to the altar of sustained hashpower majority, and buy that BTC shitcoin till you're filing tax returns on every breath you take which everyone with even the faintest level of awareness knows is the end result of that action.
Or accept that it's wrong and it's more complicated than that.

>Getting this mad because CSW is trolling on twitter
>mfw

>Because that's what the sustained hashpower majority actually is signalling and has been for over a year now.
Not that simple, bucko. If the majority actually wanted to kill the BCH chain after the fork, they would have - the COULD have, but they didn't.
You have a second rate understanding of this space and need to sit down while the adults talk.

Attached: happydedede.jpg (224x215, 16K)

I don't see how anyone can take BAB seriously, they moved away from the whitepaper which BCH was supposed to rigidly follow. Conman Roger changed his mind about PoW when it didn't suit him as usual.

Attached: powgud.png (624x324, 50K)

You mistake disdain for anger, which in turn makes you laughable.
Sure, they didn't, but BCH hasn't been anything other than a minority fork since a week or so after inception, and until BTC is literally killed, that is likely to be how it remains. There's no question that for people who say hashpower is the only thing that matters, they should be all in BTC, period.
But as someone with a third rate understanding of the space, I suppose simple truths like that escape you.
There's always a solution.

Attached: 1542368973967.png (719x586, 824K)

its pumping little goys

Are you aware that ABC has and continues to beat SV from the start even if all you want to look at is hashpower? Because your bullshit makes it seem like you're not.

Attached: svlosing.jpg (1194x896, 278K)

I think you've been drinking more than I have. Sustained hashpower is the only hashpower that cares. Rented hashpower is letting Mexicans vote in US politics before fucking them back home after the election. You are like Hillary Clinton. Corrupt as fuck, yet taking the moral high ground. Behind the scenes SV scaling is outpacing ABC, and is more logical than the Ver Wu Clown Posse.

> I think you've been drinking more than I have.
That's wrong. I'm not drinking at all, you've clearly been drowning your sorrows.
> Sustained hashpower is the only hashpower that cares.
That's laughably wrong. Sustained hashpower on BTC has loudly announced it doesn't care in the slightest.
> Rented hashpower is
Effectively all hashpower is rented, because the economically rational play on any hashpower is to simply mine whatever is paying the highest immediate returns.
> ou are like Hillary Clinton. Corrupt as fuck, yet taking the moral high ground.
Says the guy literally cheerleading for a sadder, more s'oy version of HC who presents as having a cock and is constantly ranting about how we need to get on our knees and suck the dick of the state. No thank you very much, that's not why I entered this space ten years ago, and I'm not about to bend the knee now because fuckheads like you and him demand it.
> Behind the scenes SV scaling is outpacing ABC
That's wrong. CTOR gives a higher scale ceiling for onchain transactions than the absence thereof, period.

Attached: 1526668583035.png (594x511, 366K)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhaa please keep thinking things are happening behind the scenes and bagholding

I have no sorrows, I own both chains for now, until I sell the shit one. So why mine ABC when BTC has higher returns? I don't demand you follow reason, I just call you out for folding so early. CTOR gives rise to wormhole, and to changing the algorithm because the chain can't handle POW. And how many 32MB blocks were on ABC? None.

I have both too and won't drop them until one is destroyed, because this split really isn't like core and cash. I can see the SV ruleset is suboptimal compared to ABC, but both serve the eventual goal of peer to peer electronic cash just fine, and if it came right down to it and I could snap my fingers and unify them at the expense of ruleset changes I would simply do it. This isn't like segwitcore where the coin becomes a useless abomination and is cheered on by clueless halfwits. On the off chance the SV crew are right about wormhole, I'm hedged on that possibility. I don't really see it or consider it a serious threat at this stage, but that doesn't mean it's definitely not. On the other hand, the SV crew doesn't seem to understand the position of peril that it's in if the other side who has vastly more resources at their disposal actually starts fighting back.
There has been no changing of the algo, and the chain is still POW. You seriously seem to not really have a firm handle on what's actually going on and I encourage you to educate yourself, before you end up shooting yourself in the foot doing something stupid.

BCH still accords to the whitepaper. It does not accord to the original code, however (no forks do).
What ABC has changed is that they've introduced CTOR and DSV.
What SV has done is simply increased the blocksize cap - when clients are not even able to handle close to that.
You have not given a technical explanation of why ABC's changes are bad. I'll help you here by stating that I think CTOR was questionable. But, seeming as you are quite strongly pro-SV, please list the reasons why the ABC fork was bad.

Blocking legit hashrate because you feel that CSW is a bad man, is not a legit reason for a checkpoint implementation during a fork. Look at the code, CTOR is not necessary, there were 32MB blocks before the split. It has centralized hashpower to 2 major miners, has split the community, killed the price, and most importantly is not something that stays true to the whitepaper. Is it not POW, it is POSW.

Can any of you guys tell me why these lines move in unison?
You cannot.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-18 at 3.54.35 AM.png (915x689, 157K)

>CTOR is mot necessary
I heard it simplify development?

>centralized hashpower to 2 major miners,
Compares to one for SV now?
>has split the community,
Wasn't that by the hallucinating man who believe he is satoshi?

It gives way to programming Wormhole, a protocol built on top of BCH that ignores the base protocol and is a second layer that Bitmain/Jihan Wu will be given full control over, including reaping in the fees.

But SV is playing on the main field, ABC is playing in a private bubble. And SV was a pushback from the radical ABC proposal, which is implemented by breaking the rules.

Dynamic floor. ABC spend exactly what they need to in order to defend against SV and no more.

They never needed to defend, they only played victim in order to get the BCH ticker, and to get some pity hash. They could have just forked and admitted that the coin they aim to build has nothing to with BTC or BCH, and just left it at that. They were too cocky.

Yes, that is reasonable as an explanation.
Now why is SV pulling hashpower?
on 11/16 at 6AM they were gaining on ABC and pulled back.
Again at 10PM

And now they hover near 3,600 PH/s when they already showed the capability to have near 5,400 PH/s.

You're wrong, everything you've said is wrong, and you should feel bad.

It's not possible to know for certain. Could be just variance, comparable fluctuations on fork.lol for bch and btc happen all the time. But it could also be that they're purposely hiding hashpower to purposely lower the sv floor and reorg from a shadow chain they've been building. Or it could be they false signaled a higher ceiling before to force a more expensive defense.
This won't work though because checkpoints. It would be a stupendously embarrassing expenditure of massive resources for zero benefit.

Put your penny where your mouth is. But know that if you follow ABC you are going to get fucked in many different areas as this all pans out.

If they win via shadow mining trickery what does that mean for nakamoto consensus?

Attached: DOZraZBXcAAM4Rz.jpg (1010x608, 109K)

I'm holding both.

It means that everyone know about shadow mining, so if you ignored that it might happen, you are a faggot. It still follows nakamota consensus and is in fact a valid reason for decentralized mining.

They simply can't. Checkpoints don't get rolled back no matter how much hash you point at them.

INteresting anons.
I will sleep on this tonight.

>Blocking legit hashrate because you feel that CSW is a bad man, is not a legit reason for a checkpoint implementation during a fork.
It is not just my feeling about CSW, his words are anti-thesis to what Bitcoin was intended to be. When someone provably untrustworthy pushes something though, it definitely makes me call into question everything else that they do.
>there were 32MB blocks before the split.
It's important to point out that these were not propagated to others mempools prior to the split - these could be classified as poison blocks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been no block > 32MB on SV since the fork.
>It has centralized hashpower to 2 major miners, has split the community, killed the price
I think SV did this. Other parties were willing to compromise - SV was not. My personal suspicion is that CSW was a torjan horse into the BCH community.
>is not something that stays true to the whitepaper
Actually, I don't think ABC deviates from the Whitepaper. The initial code, yes (but all forks do), but to my knowledge the ordering of transactions in a block is not specified in the whitepaper - nor are the particular op codes that Bitcoin will implement.

>provably untrustworthy
Another moral argument about character and not the code.
>no block > 32MB on SV since the fork.
There were more 32MB blocks yesterday during the stress test.
>I think SV did this
I think ABC did this by pushing an upgrade that was never necessary.
>the ordering of transactions in a block is not specified in the whitepaper
So it's not in the there, and to make the change from the whitepaper is radical.

>cash.coin.dance/
>The Bitcoin SV community believes that dedicated hash is the key mechanism used for building network consensus. The Bitcoin Cash community believes that that miners, developers, businesses, and individuals should all have a voice on future protocol changes.

Attached: 1410235591566.jpg (415x458, 27K)

Amazing how biased that shit is. They already call ABC, Bitcoin Cash. But its such a PC/SJW take on a free market economy. "individuals should have a voice". I can't even comprehend the faggotism.

So tell me, how long is this civil war going to last? A week? A month?

>Another moral argument about character and not the code.
What code? He hasn't done anything.
>There were more 32MB blocks yesterday during the stress test.
More than 32MB? I probably wouldn't have been averse to a 64MB compromise in the middle - if it could be shown that clients could handle it.
>I think ABC did this by pushing an upgrade that was never necessary.
I'm not 100% certain CTOR was the correct solution - but in concept it was to safe-guard for scaling in future.
>So it's not in the there, and to make the change from the whitepaper is radical.
This is my point. it's not in the whitepaper at all - the only place where things changed was from the initial code-base, which was always expected to happen. ABC still follows the whitepaper.

Commie you need to go back to Soviet Union

Yeah it was clearly pro ABC from the start.

So ABC using things not in the whitepaper, is following the whitepaper?

I am American, land of the free, and you can suck my free balls you cuck. Economics is king where I come from, I don't care about your tears.

>Economics is king
Market is king. Planned economy is nothing. Market can only be established with users.

Nope, users don't mine. They contribute nothing, the miners run the system, lucky for you, in crypo, the miners need users, this is why ABC just shot themselves in the foot. What user what want a chink and a whitejap to control their money and send it into a wormhole?

Japan has no market, but has a strong economy. Read Adam Smith you nimrod.

Bitcoin, the very first version, uses things that are not in the whitepaper. Every OP Code that is used is not in the Whitepaper. The 2016 block difficulty adjustment is not in the Whitepaper.

And neither was the 1MB spam filter, and I hated that just as much.

That was actually implemented in code by Satoshi himself.

>What user what want a chink and a whitejap to control their money and send it into a wormhole?
At least more trustworthy than an antisocial prophet

>Japan has no market, but has a strong economy. Read Adam Smith you nimrod.
Look at modern Japan and say it again

Nothing to market, but a high GDP, you proved my point. They used trade (economics).

Just an important with a big stash, who can kill ABC, and possibly BTC too. We will see. But its not about people, it's about code.

>Jihan owes around 1mil BSV

Oof

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-18 at 1.18.26 PM.png (1180x518, 135K)

>high GDP
>As if that mean anything when their economy is now on the edge of collapse

Biz was usually to be a smart community, really strange is fallen with a larper such WRIGHT.
Shame on you biz, leddit was right this time