[ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees

[jbreher]

Here is an excerpt from the bitcoin white paper:

 Proof-of-work  is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.

If BCH had not implemented replay protection, it would have been orphaned out of existence long ago.

Well, no. Replay protection is not a feature necessary for maintaining a chain split.

BTC still has the most hash rate invested in it. When and if things start turning around, BCH can claim that they are indeed bitcoin.

There are many perspectives from which you can view which is 'The Real Bitcoin'. Alas, I subscribe to a definition that works against where my heart is. As I dearly wish BCH was the market leader, but I must currently cede that position to BTC.

That said, I do understand the arguments that claim BCH is The Real Bitcoin, and find that they are at least rational.

Now one can argue that BTC has lost it's way and has strayed far from what is outlined from the original satoshi vision.

Word.

[1713579501]

1713579501

[1713579501]

1713579501

[1713579501]

1713579501

[1713579501]

1713579501

[Icutgrass205]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

[bones261]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

CSW legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the things they are claiming is that CSW does not have the private keys for Kleiman's coins.
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-moves-dismiss-shakedown-bitcoin-lawsuit/

[Icutgrass205]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

CSW legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the things they are claiming is that CSW does not have the private keys for Kleiman's coins.
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-moves-dismiss-shakedown-bitcoin-lawsuit/

So then it's "case closed". How can people in the crypto community who call him "faketoshi" still have credibility when the information that proves he was in fact one half of satoshi is publicly available to everyone?

[bones261]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

CSW legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the things they are claiming is that CSW does not have the private keys for Kleiman's coins.
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-moves-dismiss-shakedown-bitcoin-lawsuit/

So then it's "case closed". How can people in the crypto community who call him "faketoshi" still have credibility when the information that proves he was in fact one half of satoshi is publicly available to everyone?

The validity of the court documents have not be confirmed by any court ruling or settlement between the parties involved. CSW has made it pretty clear that he will not be providing any conclusive evidence that he is indeed Satoshi. All he would need to do is sign a message using the private key for any of the addresses the coinbase reward went to in the first 100 blocks. It's not that difficult unless he lost the private keys.
However, loosing the private keys would appear to contradict Satoshi's advise.

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case?  You should never delete a wallet.

One of the possibilities would be that Kleiman had access to all of the private keys and encrypted them, leaving everyone in the dark on what the password was.

[sirsplashalot]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

CSW legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the things they are claiming is that CSW does not have the private keys for Kleiman's coins.
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-moves-dismiss-shakedown-bitcoin-lawsuit/

So then it's "case closed". How can people in the crypto community who call him "faketoshi" still have credibility when the information that proves he was in fact one half of satoshi is publicly available to everyone?

Because at least half of the cryptocurrency community is misinformed and valid sources of news have yet to be established, this is why independent research is very important.

[bones261]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

CSW legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the things they are claiming is that CSW does not have the private keys for Kleiman's coins.
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-moves-dismiss-shakedown-bitcoin-lawsuit/

So then it's "case closed". How can people in the crypto community who call him "faketoshi" still have credibility when the information that proves he was in fact one half of satoshi is publicly available to everyone?

Because at least half of the cryptocurrency community is misinformed and valid sources of news have yet to be established, this is why independent research is very important.

Is that why CSW himself retweeted this tweet of mine? https://twitter.com/bones261/status/1035621686140391426 Because I am so misinformed? Simple fact of the matter is CSW does not wish to confirm or deny that he is indeed Satoshi at this time. Respect his wishes and leave it alone.

[sirsplashalot]

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?

CSW legal team filed a motion to dismiss. One of the things they are claiming is that CSW does not have the private keys for Kleiman's coins.
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wright-moves-dismiss-shakedown-bitcoin-lawsuit/

So then it's "case closed". How can people in the crypto community who call him "faketoshi" still have credibility when the information that proves he was in fact one half of satoshi is publicly available to everyone?

Because at least half of the cryptocurrency community is misinformed and valid sources of news have yet to be established, this is why independent research is very important.

Is that why CSW himself retweeted this tweet of mine? https://twitter.com/bones261/status/1035621686140391426 Because I am so misinformed? Simple fact of the matter is CSW does not wish to confirm or deny that he is indeed Satoshi at this time. Respect his wishes and leave it alone.

Not at all. Its in no ones best legal interest to claim the Satoshi title. I believe the 'faketoshi' references are unbacked claims with respect to craig wright. Gavin Andresen claims to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt whereas the rest cannot constitute that as valid proof and then there is the 'misinformed side' where i've seen people go as far as to claim that Vitaliks rant against Craig Wright constitutes 'proof,' when such claims are no more than opinions.

I very much respect his claim to leave it alone.

What I do find interesting about Bitcoin is that there is whitepaper to begin with. This whitepaper is in academic format, very much as Craig Wright would have had it as a lifelong academic with multiple masters and doctorate degrees.

[Icutgrass205]

Not to mention the emails sent from CSW to Kleiman before the white paper was even released.

This is a quote from the main document of the court case, which can be found here https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/1/kleiman-v-wright/


"In March 2008, just a few months before Satoshi’s paper on the Bitcoin protocol
was published, Craig wrote Dave an email stating: “I need your help editing a
paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form
of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin . . . [y]ou are always there for me Dave.
I want you to be part of it all.”

[nutildah]

Not to mention the emails sent from CSW to Kleiman before the white paper was even released.

This is a quote from the main document of the court case, which can be found here https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/1/kleiman-v-wright/


"In March 2008, just a few months before Satoshi’s paper on the Bitcoin protocol
was published, Craig wrote Dave an email stating: “I need your help editing a
paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form
of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin . . . [y]ou are always there for me Dave.
I want you to be part of it all.”

Ever heard of something called "backdating"?

In the same document you just linked:

"It is unclear whether Craig, Dave, and/or both created Bitcoin."

If Craig was Satoshi, why would he need to pull an elaborate hoax on Gavin Andresen where he presented keys that were already publicly available, embedded in the blockchain? Seems like he could have used any one of perhaps hundreds of other keys Satoshi should be in possession of.

Besides, Satoshi Nakamoto was never the ill-mannered, egocentric, conniving drama queen bedwetter that CSW is every day.

[boomboom]

Not to mention the emails sent from CSW to Kleiman before the white paper was even released.

This is a quote from the main document of the court case, which can be found here https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/1/kleiman-v-wright/


"In March 2008, just a few months before Satoshi’s paper on the Bitcoin protocol
was published, Craig wrote Dave an email stating: “I need your help editing a
paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form
of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin . . . [y]ou are always there for me Dave.
I want you to be part of it all.”

Ever heard of something called "backdating"?

In the same document you just linked:

"It is unclear whether Craig, Dave, and/or both created Bitcoin."

If Craig was Satoshi, why would he need to pull an elaborate hoax on Gavin Andresen where he presented keys that were already publicly available, embedded in the blockchain? Seems like he could have used any one of perhaps hundreds of other keys Satoshi should be in possession of.

Besides, Satoshi Nakamoto was never the ill-mannered, egocentric, conniving drama queen bedwetter that CSW is every day.

So, you think Gavin meets Craig in person and he offers the same evidence as everybody else? You don't think Gavin would have used personal communications he had with satoshi to check if Craig was legit, like ask for dates and contents of emails and forum messages? Gavin wasn't fooled, and afaik witnessed in person Craig using satoshi's priv keys.

Craig wants the situation we have, many doubters, he likes the uncertainty.

[nutildah]

So, you think Gavin meets Craig in person and he offers the same evidence as everybody else? You don't think Gavin would have used personal communications he had with satoshi to check if Craig was legit, like ask for dates and contents of emails and forum messages? Gavin wasn't fooled, and afaik witnessed in person Craig using satoshi's priv keys.

You're being bullheaded about the fact that Craig obtained the keys from the bitcoin blockchain. He used recycled keys that were out in the public and obtainable by anybody. Its impossible for Gavin to have communicated with Satoshi about the matter because he hadn't communicated with him in over 4 (maybe even 5) years by that point.

Craig wants the situation we have, many doubters, he likes the uncertainty.

Nobody gives a flying fuck what Craig wants. He's clearly a sociopathic narcissist and he hasn't contributed anything of note to the crypto community in his pursuit of even more money. He's an extremely crass, divisive figure hellbent on fooling the weak-minded into believing he is Satoshi for purpose of quenching his insatiable ego.

[boomboom]

So, you think Gavin meets Craig in person and he offers the same evidence as everybody else? You don't think Gavin would have used personal communications he had with satoshi to check if Craig was legit, like ask for dates and contents of emails and forum messages? Gavin wasn't fooled, and afaik witnessed in person Craig using satoshi's priv keys.

You're being bullheaded about the fact that Craig obtained the keys from the bitcoin blockchain. He used recycled keys that were out in the public and obtainable by anybody. Its impossible for Gavin to have communicated with Satoshi about the matter because he hadn't communicated with him in over 4 (maybe even 5) years by that point.

Craig wants the situation we have, many doubters, he likes the uncertainty.

Nobody gives a flying fuck what Craig wants. He's clearly a sociopathic narcissist and he hasn't contributed anything of note to the crypto community in his pursuit of even more money. He's an extremely crass, divisive figure hellbent on fooling the weak-minded into believing he is Satoshi for purpose of quenching his insatiable ego.

I have no idea why Craig chose to prove to Gavin conclusively in private using methods that satisfied Gavin, and then use a method in public that obviously attracts the criticism you and others make, but that is what he did. Gavin and Matonis are not idiots, and not profiting from craig afaik, and I am sure the proof he used in person included many aspects including bitcoin priv keys not used publicly, and probably also details of emails and other communications.

Craig wants people like you to do exactly what you are doing, and people like Gavin to know he is satoshi, but why ... Only he knows.

None of us knows the proof gavin saw, all we know is it satisfiec him, and then craig chose to make his public proofs dodgy, but I suspect all will be revealed eventually.

[hv_]

Nice MoneyButton improvements

https://twitter.com/money_button/status/1045400546633383936

[nutildah]

None of us knows the proof gavin saw, all we know is it satisfiec him, and then craig chose to make his public proofs dodgy, but I suspect all will be revealed eventually.

Actually its all very, very public and very easy to understand how Craig was pulling over a fast one on poor Gavin. The debate of whether Craig is a charlatan or not has long been over with. Everybody knows he was lying. Its facetious to pretend its still up in the air.

https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qLI3VIHuKU

Besides, never in any of his public communications was Satoshi 1/10th as big an asshole as CSW is on any given day. And unless CSW has an opposite sleep pattern from 99% of all human beings on earth their sleep cycles do not match up. The reasons why CSW is NOT Satoshi are many and varied and its fallacious of you to continue pretending any doubt remains in the matter.

[boomboom]

None of us knows the proof gavin saw, all we know is it satisfiec him, and then craig chose to make his public proofs dodgy, but I suspect all will be revealed eventually.

Actually its all very, very public and very easy to understand how Craig was pulling over a fast one on poor Gavin. The debate of whether Craig is a charlatan or not has long been over with. Everybody knows he was lying. Its facetious to pretend its still up in the air.

https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qLI3VIHuKU

Besides, never in any of his public communications was Satoshi 1/10th as big an asshole as CSW is on any given day. And unless CSW has an opposite sleep pattern from 99% of all human beings on earth their sleep cycles do not match up. The reasons why CSW is NOT Satoshi are many and varied and its fallacious of you to continue pretending any doubt remains in the matter.

Andresen still thinks CSW is satoshi, and states clearly he wont discuss any of the private personal details that convinced him, as I said before CSW wants guys like you to discredit and doubt him, and you're doing what he wants. He deliberately made the public proof in his blog unbelievable, and his private proof to Andresen believable, all Gavin says now is he regrets getting dragged into the find satoshi game where CSW is for some reason happy to antagonise guys like you. I agree with Gavin though, in retrospect he should not have posted his supportive blog until after craig made a compelling public proof. CSW wants to be the bad guy in bitcoin, who knows why, but he does.

[Icutgrass205]

None of us knows the proof gavin saw, all we know is it satisfiec him, and then craig chose to make his public proofs dodgy, but I suspect all will be revealed eventually.

Actually its all very, very public and very easy to understand how Craig was pulling over a fast one on poor Gavin. The debate of whether Craig is a charlatan or not has long been over with. Everybody knows he was lying. Its facetious to pretend its still up in the air.

https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qLI3VIHuKU

Besides, never in any of his public communications was Satoshi 1/10th as big an asshole as CSW is on any given day. And unless CSW has an opposite sleep pattern from 99% of all human beings on earth their sleep cycles do not match up. The reasons why CSW is NOT Satoshi are many and varied and its fallacious of you to continue pretending any doubt remains in the matter.

CSW is a savant with poor social skills..and hes Australian

[boomboom]

CSW is a savant with poor social skills..and hes Australian

Aussie guys can be quite weird , CSW is pretty normal by down under standards.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-09/in-search-of-trough-man-an-icon-of-sydneys-1980s-gay-scene/8496200

[notblox1]

I think that he is the real Faketoshi,
and BitcoinCash is the real Bcash.
There can be only one...

[nutildah]

He deliberately made the public proof in his blog unbelievable, and his private proof to Andresen believable, all Gavin says now is he regrets getting dragged into the find satoshi game where CSW is for some reason happy to antagonise guys like you. I agree with Gavin though, in retrospect he should not have posted his supportive blog until after craig made a compelling public proof. CSW wants to be the bad guy in bitcoin, who knows why, but he does.

OK again, so no public proof = no proof.

He doesn't antagonize me, its people like you who won't let reality damage their extraordinarily unfounded outlook that antagonizes me. You're free to believe what you want, but I prefer to believe in things backed by evidence. I'm sure you also believe BCH is the real bitcoin too so what's the point in continuing this silly discussion. You're only feeding the ego of one of crypto's biggest con artists.