Some of us were sounding the alarm about patents from the beginning. Many of your open source and free software heroes who built the infrastructure you are using today have been sounding this alarm since before Bitcoin existed - since before some of us were born.
In particular /u/deadalnix commented a long, long time ago that the ways nChain was proposing to use their patents did not meet the open source and free software definitions, and that this was IMPORTANT, not just some idealistic crusade.
I will be messaging you on [**2019-05-20 02:35:56 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2019-05-20 02:35:56 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yj3xe/handcash_on_its_decision_to_go_with_sv_nchain/)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yj3xe/handcash_on_its_decision_to_go_with_sv_nchain/]%0A%0ARemindMe! 6 months) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! ea2rddf)
|[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/)
Will you look at that. *Another* company that never really believed in "Nakamoto Consensus" or "hashpower" to begin with, and was just pretending they did because they incorrectly believed that their side would win. And when their side lost, we learned that they never really cared about those ideals to begin with.
the thing is... everyone here seems to twist the tone of this. It is not that they feel their siding with SV is incorrect... or forced. this simply says the technology is not worth giving up. because thats a choice of theirs as well....
If they hadn't received money from nChain they wouldn't be building on SV. So, money was the motivating factor. Kind of amazing they ignore the fact that the chain they're building on is a dead ghost town.
>that the chain they're building on is a dead ghost town.
Yup. Maybe they are waiting for the chain to finally die, so they can start anew with no strings attached. Of course they could never say this publicly.
The unified coin proposal that many services (including ours) decided to follow has not worked as expected - hence the errors you might have experienced when sending and receiving transactions in the vast majority of the ecosystem.
No fucking way! The ABC cultists couldn't be right! \s
In all seriousness a ton of people here called this out. It was obvious from the start.
The pro-ABC ruleset side did not work in a predictable and reliable manner during this upgrade period, making all of our efforts for containing the split in the short term futile.
Trying to shift the blame on someone else instead of their own lack of foresight and ability to listen to others.
Like renting hash from nicehash?
HashWar is not over yet: It could take weeks or months, but based on hashpower and economic incentives, the SV ruleset is most probably going to be the imposed ruleset for BCH in the end, and we do not wish to change chains again. There is no technical indicator that points to another possible result.
Like the case with your "unified coin" eh?
We are building and plan to build incredible tools and apps for our customers, and these patents give us a huge competitive advantage.
Like what? A competitive advantage to steal their coins either through centralized handles routes or by having 2/3 SSSS parts?
We don’t care about the ticker and never did - we just want a reliable and stable network that scales - but we are very focused on simplicity and having different coins is not an option.
That's fair. Too bad you chose the network that actively discard scaling benefits.
The Bitcoin SV side is more aligned with us in terms of global adoption, keeping Bitcoin legal and innovating on top of the protocol - not messing with it and causing splits again and again.
Everything that's possible on the ABC chain is possible on SV. Including all illegal stuff.
You also can't scale without "messing with the protocol".
Graphene. CTOR makes it much better for large blocks.
It's necessary to keep propagation delays low. If they're too high orphan rates increase and big miners become markedly more profitable than small miners decreasing miner decentralization.
I have no idea how you read the OP and that thread coming away with that impression.
No there are other ways which are all similar (yet none is proposed). But one is needed, CTOR is as good as any. It's also very simple.
Well, the reason I am hammering on about this is that the other side is doing 32Mb blocks sustained atm without network-protocol or bitcoin-protocol related changes and probably going +32Mb soon.
The narrative here, just a few weeks ago was we cannot go over 20Mb. Then there were a few 32Mb blocks and the next line was, "oh but we can not do it sustained". And here we are now, SV is doing it sustained without CTOR or other consensus sensitive changes.
> SV is doing it sustained without CTOR or other consensus sensitive changes
Have you missed the thread about them orphaning their own blocks left and right? It's not doing anything except demonstrating to everybody exactly why bigger blocks are dangerous right now. ABC side was right once again, how many times now?
Well "left and right" is a bit of an exaggeration I would say, but indeed when you are stress testing you risk hitting bottlenecks. That is the idea. Just like the 64Mb block did not propagate very smoothly. Still, I have yet to encounter a bottleneck that cannot be fixed with better hardware and bandwidth.