Apologize

hes actually gay

So did BCH stay BCH after all?

In spirit, yes.
But that required lots of changes to the code and community.

its an abomination

The dump is going to be magnificent

Yep. The dream lives on.

Source on BCH moving away from POW? I don't keep up with crypto news on a daily basis.

Not even fucking close. You guys threw away everything even though you had such a sound "victory" 1 day in.

Idk what would be the best place to go to read
Just take these keywords on a google search:

also checked.

The only change is the rolling 10 block checkpoint, no? BCH is still proof of work from what I've read?

You should also look up "the conclusion of the bitcoin cash experiment" by unwriter.

Just remember that when he wrote the first article about Bitcoin BTC, it was right at the bottom of a bear market and it went on to soar to 20k.
So a dead coin technically doesn't mean a dead market.
But since BSV exists and Satoshi might reveal soon, I think things are different.

Congrats on this. Seriously.

Attached: DnDw4pnXgAEC-GQ.jpg (711x1200, 142K)

>satoshi might reveal soon
what

>the only change
10 point rolling checkpoint is a HUGE change.
A POW blockchain is a LIVING organism. Each block added is growth, like a child rising up. The chain is alive, organic, undulating, vibrating with consciousness and energy. It is a spirit and a gleaming light.

Putting checkpoints on this is like taking a gigantic stapler and stapling the very heart of this organism every 10 blocks. It is sadistic. It is torture. It is disgusting.
Imagine as your child grows every 10 cm you take an axe and chop off his feet to put him back where he was. It is inconceivable.

>only
no.
It was everything.
And avalanche and CTOR are egregious in their own way as well, as far as POW blockchains go.
They can be p2p cash, but they cannot be Bitcoin.

p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o

0ye0gncqg772o.com/

look at the URLs.

Yeah I cant see that happening. Even if he came back, proved who he was, you know Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV would all just ignore it and stay on their own path even if he offered advice or added onto his vision. Theyd just say, oh yeah thanks, we're looking into that too, you're so cool! Pls be adviser but nothing would even change. Sure he could crash the market if he has access to a lot of early coins but what would even be the point.

Yeah but what if Satoshi either launches a new coin or backs a coin that is already existing

he has 1M bitcoins so I guess he'd fork off from someone's project.

Thanks. So what are the benifits from using the 10 point rolling checkpoint? Preventing shadow mining? Anything else? Sorry if it's a stupid question, I'm not super tech savy.

Well the reason they put the checkpoints on is exactly what you said, to prevent a deep reorganization attack (basically shadow mining like you said).

But funnily enough, by basically making your blockchain only 10 blocks long at any point in time, it makes it even easier to attack. You can't do a deep reorg, but it becomes very cheap to do a constant reorg attack, almost like a DDOS on the blockchain.
It was a shortsighted decision made out of fear.

Twitter might unironically be the best place to find people who were talking about this a few weeks back.

Holy balls Jow Forums, I typed a super fucking long reply but accidentally pressed ESC on my keyboard because I thought I was in CTRL+F mode and everything was removed from the reply textfield. Spend fucking 5 minutes on it, Jow Forums should save the text in a cookie for quick restore.

Anyway, I'll give you a short version. Yes BCH is PoW but the ABC auto 10 block checkpoints replaces the threat of a deep re-org with the threat of additional forks.

Also the version of Avalanche on BCH is NOT proof of stake based, it is proof of work based. The miners who have produced the latest 100 blocks get to vote on the valid double spend transaction. Don't be misinformed: Avalanche in Bitcoin Cash is proof-of-work.

Attached: rage2.jpg (983x1073, 621K)

>consensus based on the past and not the future
I must not be understanding properly.

You wouldn't have lost that post if you were using auto 10 word checkpoints user.
tsk tsk.

so miners can collude to vote for double spends?
based.

Fuck it, I'll try to rewrite some of what I wrote about checkpoints.

twitter.com/pwuille/status/1065049868769476610
Again, basically checkpoints replaces the threat of a deep re-org with the threat of additional forks.

This means that an attacker can use a burst of hashpower to try and get different parts of the network to use his checkpoint, splitting from the rest. After success he can safely turn off his hashpower since the split is now locked in. If online nodes periodically check which chain is the most popular one and then switch over, then what was the point of adding checkpoints?

Also let's pretend you're new in the network and want to sync the blockchain. But there are several chains, how do you know which one to use? The only way to know is for a centralized authority to TELL you which checkpoints are valid. If you as a new node analyze the network to check which chain is the most popular one, then what was the point of adding checkpoints?

Automatic checkpoints was a terrible idea that wasn't on the ABC roadmap yet it was implemented very quickly with very little testing and the non-ABC devs and exchanges still just followed. Some complained but in the end they followed. The checkpoint business is most of the reason I jumped over from BCH to BSV after supporting Bitcoin Cash for the whole year.

And to those that keep shouting that Satoshi used checkpoints, YES he did but he did it at a time where the hashpower was a fraction of a fraction of what it is today. Someone could have rewritten two years of txs and miner rewards for less than 25k USD, that same cost today would be several billion USD and require secret mining facilities on the moon (note: pulling cost numbers out of my ass to prove a point). It made economical sense to use checkpoints for protection back then, not now. He also did it carefully, going 200 blocks back and made sure there weren't any splits in the chain.

Attached: cat banana.jpg (1200x1553, 556K)

better sell now before this shitcoin plummets tomorrow

Also here's a 7 years old reddit post that warns about auto-checkpoints. Situation seems familiar.

old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/kecul/solid_coin_shutting_down_for_2_weeks_claims_it/c2jqj1q/

"The other thing he'll probably do is add automatic checkpoints. It seems obvious and like it will work, at face value. Kind of like the other failed features he's added (flat tx fees, for example). What will then happen is malicious clients will send fake blocks down to peers that are starting from SC's genesis block, and they won't be able to tell what the authentic chain is. So new users have no guarantee of security..but hey, if you never disconnect from the network, you're golden.

Assuming he sees the flaws in that, I suppose he try setting up a central location for pulling checkpoints which he controls. He'll update the checkpoint daily himself at some URL, instead of compiling it into the client. 50BTC to the first guy to seize control of his web server and/or domain and forge false checkpoints, completely choking the network or forcing the network to accept their forked chain. Hopefully he'll at least include his public key and provide signed updates..but it's still a completely terrible idea which is essentially centralizing control of the network.

He who holds the public key controls the chain.

Simply put, there's really no solution to the >51% hashing problem which still involves using proof-of-work while remaining completely decentralized. Hard coded checkpoints are a temporary hack to try to prevent potential damage from an undiscovered exploit while Bitcoin is growing. If he actually has a solution beyond that, it would probably invalidate the very idea of block chains."

Attached: Through the Jungle.jpg (1816x884, 734K)

Claiming satoshi used checkpoints so it's ok is the same as using the satoshi added the 1mb blocksize limit argument. They understand the flaw with one argument but no the other, they're hypocrites.

Nice breakdown user thx

Idk, they might end up filling a niche, we'll see

lol that is classic

Attached: checkpoints.jpg (886x403, 149K)

if you want to learn more about avalanche i can recommend this:
medium.com/@chrispacia/avalanche-pre-consensus-making-zeroconf-secure-ddedec254339

Attached: obama photo machine.jpg (500x375, 17K)

>medium.com/@chrispacia/avalanche-pre-consensus-making-zeroconf-secure-ddedec254339
Thx user

I dove into that,
and read the whitepaper a while ago, learned about the gossip protocol and everything...
I also saw that ryan charles even talked about using avalanche as a simple preconsensus on top of Bitcoin

avalanche always seemed like an interesting technology delivered with a poison pill to me.
it allows for some potentially fucked up things.
like voting on protocol changes. on bitcoin emission changes. etc.

lol

Avalanche is what happens when you have a bunch of developers with no economic background whatsoever. It requires minimum fees to be agreed upon by all.

that's what worried me the most
it seems like a form of direct democracy
this is the exact opposite of pow ggovernance - where the ones who put in the most work get the most say

i like what avalanche tries to do, and i was really sad to fork away from it...
until i found PARSEC
its on maidsafe .
its even better than avalanche

Salty core cuck.