[ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision

[alevlaslo]

to compete with bitcoin, you need not technology, but energy demand, otherwise the system will destroy what threatens this demand

https://youtu.be/Jivb7lupDNU

[1714961207]

1714961207

[1714961207]

1714961207

[1714961207]

1714961207

[1714961207]

1714961207

[Buttermellow]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

[sirsplashalot]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

If Craig has access to the Satoshi wallet, he can singlehandly crash the BTC market after 01/01/2020. It’s naive to believe the total coin marketcap supply will be 21,000,000 given all the lost bitcoin in circulation, I reckon the total suppply is closer to 10 million.

[Mountain_Crew]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

If Craig has access to the Satoshi wallet, he can singlehandly crash the BTC market after 01/01/2020. It’s naive to believe the total coin marketcap supply will be 21,000,000 given all the lost bitcoin in circulation, I reckon the total suppply is closer to 10 million.

Where did you read that it will change on 01/01/2020 ?

[sirsplashalot]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

If Craig has access to the Satoshi wallet, he can singlehandly crash the BTC market after 01/01/2020. It’s naive to believe the total coin marketcap supply will be 21,000,000 given all the lost bitcoin in circulation, I reckon the total suppply is closer to 10 million.

Where did you read that it will change on 01/01/2020 ?

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/satoshi-nakamoto-grand-reveal-party-on-or-before-january-1-2020-will-a-bitcoin-btc-or-bch-swap-happen/

[alevlaslo]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

If Craig has access to the Satoshi wallet, he can singlehandly crash the BTC market after 01/01/2020. It’s naive to believe the total coin marketcap supply will be 21,000,000 given all the lost bitcoin in circulation, I reckon the total suppply is closer to 10 million.

Where did you read that it will change on 01/01/2020 ?

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/satoshi-nakamoto-grand-reveal-party-on-or-before-january-1-2020-will-a-bitcoin-btc-or-bch-swap-happen/

 
if this is true, the BSV in January will cost more than BTC

[ðºÞæ]

Interview with CEO of nChain, Jimmy Nguyen
https://youtu.be/4LUDVLuS9nU

and Craig Wright "Bitcoin will move to 3 Billion transaction per second"
https://youtu.be/moA7KASx3WE

[alevlaslo]

[hv_]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

Its entire value rests on Wright being Satoshi. Outside of that it's simply another altcoin with bitcoin in its name.

If u really believe ur written crap, why u posting it here? What is u want to achieve or just being destructive and trolling? 

No

BSV is the only clean chain that has no crap code seen like segshit or dsv / ctor - altcoin genes ...

And it scales like hell, that's what u fear, since only ur dumb fear drives u to troll here.

Try to spend ur time more constructive or ur live is just usless - ur choice

[sirsplashalot]

So how many of you bots actually believe Craig is Satoshi? If you know youre right then you have nothing to fear, as Satoshi founded this forum. Surely Satoshi wouldn't let a 'dictatoship' disallow people from acknowledging his identity on his own forum, right? Be proud about your convictions and let the world know for the record.

I believe 2/3 members of the ‘Satoshi Team’’ team are dead, kind of like this form. Are you saying you don’t believe Dave Klieman also didn’t play a role in the ‘Satoshi Team.’

[ðºÞæ]

BSV is a Blockchain it does not depend on a single person.
Vitalik (and others) will have to opportunity in court to prove the fraud claims. Failing to do so will cost him a bit.

In this old interview is some good old bitch slapping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq2rI0NtJzU&t=39m0s

[sirsplashalot]

There's no way I'm reading all that but on what basis are you proclaiming Craig is Satoshi?

I think on the basis that he's delusional......

Nah! wether craig is satoshi or not the question is "does it help contribute to the market? There ain't no way that it can help after all it is the community will decide to invest in a good project or leave it behind and regret in the near future. This project is good and I am closely monitr it on the updates of this project.

Its entire value rests on Wright being Satoshi. Outside of that it's simply another altcoin with bitcoin in its name.

If u really believe ur written crap, why u posting it here? What is u want to achieve or just being destructive and trolling? 

No

BSV is the only clean chain that has no crap code seen like segshit or dsv / ctor - altcoin genes ...

And it scales like hell, that's what u fear, since only ur dumb fear drives u to troll here.

Try to spend ur time more constructive or ur live is just usless - ur choice

Wright claiming to be Satoshi is one of the most epic trolljobs in all of crypto. You and splashalot are simply perpetuating a fraud by pretending Wright is Satoshi. You are the worst trolls in crypto since Roger Ver and the bcash boys (which you were before sv)

That would require you to prove Craig is a fraud first. Again, that’s how the law works. You cannot rule on opinionated judgements in court poopytildah.

[jamespastagueule]

Dr. Craig Wright on why Bitcoin Core is everything Bitcoin is not
Bitcoin – the original digital currency – was designed with decentralization in mind. It was meant to now be controlled by one entity or individual, such as a central bank, and put the power into the hands of all the users on the network. Bitcoin Core (BTC) may have started out adhering to that principle, but it quickly morphed into something completely different. Over the past decade, it has become more centralized, diminishing the root of its purpose. Dr. Craig Wright explains in a recent Medium post what was initially involved when he created Bitcoin and how coins such as BTC have lost their way.

To help the crypto community better understand how BTC has become more centralized, Wright developed a detailed analogy. He starts by laying the foundation, stating, “In our experiment, let us assume 1 billion people are now running and using sequential gold. We’ll call it for the experiment an alternative form of bit gold, for it’s nothing like Bitcoin. Like with Bitcoin, a core group sets the software updates and rolls out the node software.”

Protocol changes take place along one timeline in sequential gold, with no changes happing in another. Wright develops two scenarios as the system evolves. In the first, the system is completely decentralized and the discover is a serial lottery. Blocks are randomly found and it isn’t possible to predict what the next block will be. In other words, the only way to earn money through this system is by winning the lottery. Wright explains, “Let’s keep a few people happy and make one-minute blocks. This means we have approximately 525,600 blocks every year. With our collection of 1 billion people, we now expect the average person to win the lottery once every 1900 years.”

As such, there is no economic incentive to outperform anyone else, because there’s no way to increase the odds of hitting the lottery.

In the other system, there is an incentive due to its nature. It is a system that rewards those who are online more and involves a network whose protocol changes with time. Those changes can come for a number of reasons, but what has been seen with BTC is that some of the changes have been made in order to increase the incentives to certain individuals.

Wright explains, “If the protocol is allowed to evolve, as occurs with competitors to Bitcoin such as Core coin (BTC), then we have a scenario where the network fragments unless all users are running the same version.” However, by handing control over to the development team, the fragmentation can end.

This isn’t the idea solution, though. As Wright points out, by giving the developers the control, “You allow them to take control of not only the protocol but the software updates. You allow them to force you to have updated software. Once such power is granted, the power over everything in your life has been relegated to such people. It is why Bitcoin was hijacked to create (BTC) Core coin.

“A group of people with strong ties to anarchist and criminal groups seeks power. In the true sense of 1984 doublespeak, they will tell you how they’re freeing you. They will do so as they have you relegate control and give them the power to update and change the protocol. Such is the true path of BTC (Core).”

Source: https://coingeek.com/dr-craig-wright-on-why-bitcoin-core-is-everything-bitcoin-is-not/

[sirsplashalot]

Nutildah is the dumbest person I’ve argued with on this form that’s why I always quote him to ensure the evidence is there of exactly what he says. Refuses to debate me on video and defames me daily.

Proof of pussy.

[jamespastagueule]

That would require you to prove Craig is a fraud first. Again, that’s how the law works. You cannot rule on opinionated judgements in court poopytildah.

How old are you, like 10?

The burden of proof is on Craig to prove hes not a fraud.

Wanna make a bet? I bet you craiggy loses in court. If I'm right, you have to stop commenting on this thread.

If he wins, I stop commenting in this thread.

We don't need your wife, but thanks. Go home, cucked.

[sirsplashalot]

That would require you to prove Craig is a fraud first. Again, that’s how the law works. You cannot rule on opinionated judgements in court poopytildah.

How old are you, like 10?

The burden of proof is on Craig to prove hes not a fraud.

Wanna make a bet? I bet you craiggy loses in court. If I'm right, you have to stop commenting on this thread.

If he wins, I stop commenting in this thread.

In Kleiman v Wright? Which exact case are you referring to?
 
Layout the terms of your bet properly mate.

[jamespastagueule]

Decentralised or just inefficient?

Let us do a little thought experiment.

Later in the year, I’ll be talking about a way of doing serialised algorithms across machines. It is something I developed in 2005. It seems to be what many seek to add into cryptocurrency, and yet it is what I rejected 15 years ago in creating Bitcoin. I will explain at the next CoinGeek Conference some methods that will allow the creation of nodes that can mine without any parallelisation being possible. That means, one machine will earn as much as two machines and as much as 10 or a million. In other words, it does not matter if you have one ASIC device or 100 racks of ASIC devices; the result is the same return.


We have a patent being filed on the technique as I’ve never published it. So I’m going to leave you with the Hegelian dilemma that will be posed here; do you seek to use my technology even with a patent and my permission, or do you avoid it because I have created it?

The Socratic dialectic
So let us start our thought experiment. Ignore for a moment that it is me who has proposed the algorithm, and consider that a serialised one-way function exists, that is, a function that is simple to verify and yet gains no extra ability through the introduction of parallelised systems. I’ll leave you to do research on such functions for now, but they do exist, and if you don’t believe me, you can have a segue through a discourse of alternate information as you learn that serial functions that cannot be parallelised have been known for a long time.

Inherently sequential.

There are many problems that had been known well before computer science. One that has been talked about many times throughout history is a common one in project management — an analogy based on humanity.

The number of women will not reduce the length of pregnancy.

My little addition is simply that I’ve found some that act as a one-way trap.

In our experiment, let us assume 1 billion people are now running and using sequential gold. We’ll call it for the experiment an alternative form of bit gold, for it’s nothing like Bitcoin. Like with Bitcoin, a core group sets the software updates and rolls out the node software.


In sequential gold, protocol changes will happen in one timeline, no change will happen in another. We’ll experiment with both possibilities and see what happens. To start, let us look at a fixed protocol. Something set in stone like Bitcoin. As such, we’ll start with an experiment when no changes in it occur — ever — and look at our first set of problems. We have 1 billion people running our protocol. It’s completely decentralised, and the discovery is a serial lottery. Here, every block is randomly found, and no one can predict what the next one will be.

There are 31,556,926 seconds in a year.

Let’s keep a few people happy and make one-minute blocks. This means we have approximately 525,600 blocks every year. With our collection of 1 billion people, we now expect the average person to win the lottery once every 1900 years. The maths is not too difficult.

Bitcoin is an economic incentive system. The security of Bitcoin relies on a group of individuals investing money in building to create a secure system. It is not the tragedy of the commons which we have in the communist or socialist version of Bitcoin.

With 1 billion people or families seeking to earn money from their node using a sequential algorithm, no party can expect a return. It becomes a pure lottery. Basically, everyone in the world runs a node with the vain hope of achieving a rare lottery win. Without delving into the plethora of dystopian novels based on the concept of a society that slaves as sheep to fulfil another’s destiny with the hope of one day winning the lottery and getting out of the grind, we can start looking at this further. Such a version of Bitcoin becomes the classic problem of the tragedy of the commons; if I need to propagate the blocks of every other user and I do not expect to win, why would I want to?

Why am I investing in creating an infrastructure to pass blocks around the global network helping people I will never meet?

We can argue that each individual gains knowing that he has a secure monetary source. Yet, where is the incentive not to cheat? Think about it for a minute: the majority of people are going to come to understand that they have a better return on money buying a government lotto ticket than they do investing in the support of the Bitcoin node network. Consequently, why would you leave your node running, consuming electricity and costing you money to validate other people’s transactions? Few would.

The reality is that most individuals would only leave their system on and running if they needed to personally check and validate a transaction, and then they would only do so while it was occurring.

If individuals come and go and need to download and update the blockchain every time their transaction occurs, they are still investing money and yet getting few returns. Why invest even more for the chance of a lottery ticket? It is something no one seems to investigate when seeking to make Bitcoin into sequential gold. Once you do so, you remove the incentive and you remove the security of Bitcoin’s network effect, that is, an ultra small-world graph. The network collapses into a mere mesh. Once this occurs, it cannot be secured.

So now let us assume that we have a dedicated core of users who see the importance of Bitcoin’s node network and distribution. We’ll assume that a mere 0.1% of the population using Bitcoin understand such importance and will maintain it no matter what. So we have 1 million people running a node all the time and the remaining 999 million people running a node 1% of the time, which means our lotto will be distributed in the following way:

1. Those who do not care — (999/1000)*1 = 0.999

2. Those who are staunch supporters of the network no matter what — (1/1000)*99 = 0.099

The total sample set is now 1.098.

So the distribution is:

1. 0.999/1.098 = 90.98%

2. 0.099/1.098 = 9.164%

In effect, our staunch supporters of the network are expected to win more than the average because they are online more often and protecting the network more. Yet, such actors still only receive 9.1% of the network transactions and across all of the users gain a mere fraction of the rewards. Yes, again, many many times more than the average person, but the reality is that they still only achieve a block once every 173 years.

We have to assume that the same group of dedicated altruists will sacrifice their earnings for their entire life just to ensure the integrity of the network. Yet, at such scale, we can expect large costs. Current network costs at such scale will result in monthly charges of around US$10,000-25,000, and you can double the figure when you add computational costs, storage costs, and more. In such a version of a distributed coin, sequential gold, what we end up with is another project that needs to be saved by government. It is the typical consequence of the socialist mindset in their hatred and desire to bring down companies that fails to understand that you cannot create anything through destruction.

The problem is one that is faced over and over by “utopians” and socialists throughout history. It is the economic problem: how do they get other people to pay for their costs? It is what Bitcoin truly solved.

What you will start to discover, if you analyse it, is that the network will always degrade. In 2013, I had simulations on my website demonstrating this. Unlike Bitcoin, sequential gold never incentivises a single fork. As soon as an orphan chain comes into existence (which is a natural part of Bitcoin and an aspect of the security model of Bitcoin), the system starts to fragment into more and more chains that will never rejoin. Without the economic incentive to build corporate systems and funded miners, the system degrades in a tragedy of the commons.

An evolving protocol
It merely gets worse if we consider a protocol that is not set in stone. If the protocol is allowed to evolve, as occurs with competitors to Bitcoin such as Core coin (BTC), then we have a scenario where the network fragments unless all users are running the same version. It is more important in a network of a billion people with a lottery than it ever would be in Bitcoin itself. If every party does not upgrade, you will end with enhanced protocol forking that never rejoins. The network fragments very quickly.

There is an answer to such an issue: you hand control, that is power to the development team.

You allow them to take control of not only the protocol but the software updates. You allow them to force you to have updated software. Once such power is granted, the power over everything in your life has been relegated to such people. It is why Bitcoin was hijacked to create (BTC) Core coin.

A group of people with strong ties to anarchist and criminal groups seeks power. In the true sense of 1984 doublespeak, they will tell you how they’re freeing you. They will do so as they have you relegate control and give them the power to update and change the protocol. Such is the true path of BTC (Core).

It is everything Bitcoin is not.

Only a stable protocol disseminates power. The reason is that power comes from the ability to change the protocol. Once you remove the ability to change the protocol, you take away the power of those seeking to alter it.

Source: https://medium.com/@craig_10243/decentralised-or-just-inefficient-1eefecec03ff


Here is another good instruction from om a genius researcher aka Satoshi Nakamoto. I also recommend this highly informative reading .

[sirsplashalot]

That would require you to prove Craig is a fraud first. Again, that’s how the law works. You cannot rule on opinionated judgements in court poopytildah.

How old are you, like 10?

The burden of proof is on Craig to prove hes not a fraud.

Wanna make a bet? I bet you craiggy loses in court. If I'm right, you have to stop commenting on this thread.

If he wins, I stop commenting in this thread.

In Kleiman v Wright? Which exact case are you referring to?
 
Layout the terms of your bet properly mate.

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about the Wright initiated lawsuit against Peter McCormack.

Its pretty simple to understand. Wright loses, you leave. Wright wins, I leave.

Except for the fact 98% of civil suits settle before trial.

[hv_]

Scaling is not easy to test under productive / real conditions.

So good that we have SV to do that NOW at early stage and lets fix all the issues.

Nice write up here btw

https://bitsonline.com/blockchain-re-orgs-bitcoin-security

[sirsplashalot]

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about the Wright initiated lawsuit against Peter McCormack.

Its pretty simple to understand. Wright loses, you leave. Wright wins, I leave.

Except for the fact 98% of civil suits settle before trial.

Theres a strong chance Craig will withdraw the suit on the advice of anybody sane or rational but in the meantime it sounds like you're pussing out.

Exactly more of a reason why there needs to be complete terms to the bet you goddamn retard. How does you’re ‘withdrawal’ situation fit nto a ‘win or loss’ situation? This isn’t a football match mate. Bets are issued on the terms agreed upon by both parties. What am I agreeing to and how am I a pussy for not agreeing to something I don’t even know of? I’d be pretty stupid to enter such a contract.