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

[hv_]

It is Bitcoin - but not ur BTC  (what is altered SegwitCoin)
Stop whining and grow up

It's not.
Never was (fork of BCH)
Never will be: centralized, unsustainable, average Joe can't run a full node so it's very unBitcoin.

Nope - all these(Segwit, ABC)  are altered protocols - BSV fixes the immature alterings.

thx for asking that again

Average Joe should'nt spent any mony on node running / any infrastructure - because that Quality is lower than average - rather enjoy low fees and stable Systems and use his bit of Money for his life.

[1713411768]

1713411768

[ðºÞæ]

@Iamtutut
"block size" can be challenging for some.
“number of people who can conduct business with each other every 10 minutes size”, even a tut has a change of understanding what it is.

How idiotic is it  to deliberately keep the number small.

[ðºÞæ]

..
 Bitcoin that has 9500+ full nodes.

...

Satoshi disagrees

[hv_]

..
 Bitcoin that has 9500+ full nodes.

...

Satoshi disagrees

Lies and BS, so much CSWish.


https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/nodes: 9328

Sure, cause 9301 are floppy raspis - good luck

 

[ðºÞæ]

Was catching up with Satoshi, Dr Wright
https://youtu.be/gbPeS-NhTDg
another great interview

[hv_]

Here comes the MURL

https://twitter.com/justicemate/status/1153792101869473794?s=21

 

[jbreher]

https://bitcoinblocks.live/

It says bitcoin... that's not bitcoin, you diptwat.

You sound salty, mon frere. It's a URL. Get over it.

[jbreher]

It is Bitcoin - but not ur BTC  (what is altered SegwitCoin)

Never will be: centralized,

False.

unsustainable,

While unknowable a priori, that is quite unlikely.

average Joe can't run a full node

False.

so it's very unBitcoin.

Well, you're batting zero for three in your stated criteria. So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! It's the most Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At least from the standpoint of the design of the protocol itself. The only legitimate claim BTC/Segwit/Core has on the title is popularity. Which can be fleeting.

[jbreher]

The idiocy is wishing to ad up to 52.6TB of data per year. You'll have to by 4X 14TB HDD in RAID mode, which means 1600USD of storage.

Well, no. First, 14TB is not the current sweet spot in $/TB. And there is certainly no requirement for RAID. The first source I checked shows NAS-class 4TB HDDs for under a hunnert*. Probably can get it down to $1200 with a half-hour's investment, but we'll go with $1400. Not off by an order of magnitude, but significant.

This year. If we get 52.6TB of blockchain this year, it'll surprise everyone. And likely be reflected in the price that the utility of such storage is worth. At which point $1400 will be trivial to anyone who buys a $165 BSV today. But that's just this year.

If it is only next year that we reach 52.6TB -- still unlikely -- that'll be less than $900 in storage costs.

Will we hit that the following year? Maybe. Maybe $600 high side cost estimate. Trending towards trivial.

And costs will only continue to go down from there.

More importantly, with an average tx size of 250 bytes, the system could support more than 200 Billion txs in that 52.6TB.

Yes, in order to store every economic transaction generated by all humans, one will need storage. Get over it. Kind of goes hand-in-hand with the actual utility provided to humanity.

Incidentally, I don't think your 52.6TB figure is rooted in reality. What were your assumptions?

And I'll acknowledge that with the price of data on the blockchain being low, the average tx size will likely be much greater than current. So 200 Billion tx is a stretch. Think of it as a high side bound. Whatevs.

*https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16822236599

[jbreher]

https://bitcoinblocks.live/

It says bitcoin... that's not bitcoin, you diptwat.

You sound salty, mon frere. It's a URL. Get over it.

Salt, sugar and/or fat. whatever.  

I find it weird that you seem inclined to minimize what you understand to be an ongoing claim of bcash SV diptwats - they are trying to get and to keep bitcoin in their name,

Yes. 'Bitcoin' has always been part of the name 'Bitcoin SV' - is that a tautology? And yes, we proponents of SV intend to keep it there. As long as it takes for the world at large to recognize that Bitcoin SV is the Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At which point the world at large will come to refer to it as simply 'Bitcoin', relegating the then-to-be-unpopular BTC to the name of 'Bitcoin Segwit', 'Bitcoin Core', or whatever other appellation it manages to conjure up with any amount of stickiness.

and we also know that a major part of the value that comes with in bcash SV, besides the strategic pumping to try to create the impression of demand and value is that the stupid-ass contradiction laden faketoshi continues to purposefully (and however preposterous that it seems to many) hold himself out as if he were to the real inventor of bitcoin.

While I hold no knowledge of the Satoshiness of CSW, I must cede your point that it is likely that at least some of the market perception of BSV is driven by that very question. Though OTOH, this may work against the acceptance of this chain rather than for it. What with all the Craig Derangement Syndrome endemic to this space.

Furthermore, it is not just the name of the website, you go along with exaggerator.  Right on the top left of the homepage of that website, what the fuck does it say up there?  Answer:  BITCOIN BLOCKS.  

Of course it does. SV is the Bitcoiniest of all the Bitcoins.

So shouldn't I say "whatever" to you in regards to your diversion and minimization tactics?

Knock yourself out, brotherman (or brotherwoman ... sisterwoman...).

The only legitimate claim BTC/Segwit/Core has on the title is popularity. Which can be fleeting.

If you just call [ BTC ], "bitcoin" many of us should know what you are talking about because there are no others that really matter in any kind of meaningful way..

Yet here you are, yammering away in a dedicated SV thread. One might almost think that it ... ummm ... mattered to you.

[jbreher]

Its not based on anything other than a preference of belief, yours is that BSV is closer to being the Bitcoin that Satoshi intended. There's no way to prove that of course

May be no way of knowing what Satoshi intended. However, we do know what Satoshi initially bequeathed us (haha - bequeathed - almost like religion again:) ). And we know that BSV is much closer to that than is BTC. And getting closer with each release.

[ðºÞæ]

Tech wise BSV is effectively BTC without the known flaws and some extras added: Not only is it fast and cheap to transact, but BSV also allows for simple Email style Addresses that would help mainstream adoption.
BSV intends not only to store cryptocurrency transactions on the blockchain but also all sorts of data.

http://thecaseforbsv.com/

[hv_]

Its not based on anything other than a preference of belief, yours is that BSV is closer to being the Bitcoin that Satoshi intended. There's no way to prove that of course

May be no way of knowing what Satoshi intended. However, we do know what Satoshi initially bequeathed us (haha - bequeathed - almost like religion again:) ). And we know that BSV is much closer to that than is BTC. And getting closer with each release.

Just like religion, bitcoin is allowed to evolve. Nobody said it _has_ to stay a particular way, that is, unless you believe Satoshi was some omnipotent, perfect being and the white paper itself is some sort of divine text. I personally don't recognize the power of that selling point as being substantial, but if others do then that is their right. Freedom of religion, I suppose.

And now it evolves into 3 different ticker-tagged directions. No need to get one 'un-allowed' - esp not the most closetst to the original.

And yes - BSV works because the White Paper and Version 0.1 was most perfectly designed - that is the only thing  that haters could hate.

[hv_]

It is Bitcoin - but not ur BTC  (what is altered SegwitCoin)

Never will be: centralized,

False.

unsustainable,

While unknowable a priori, that is quite unlikely.

average Joe can't run a full node

False.

so it's very unBitcoin.

Well, you're batting zero for three in your stated criteria. So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! It's the most Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At least from the standpoint of the design of the protocol itself. The only legitimate claim BTC/Segwit/Core has on the title is popularity. Which can be fleeting.

Few mining pools, few nodes and less and less. It's centralizing, that's a fact.

Average Joe won't spend 1600usd (HDDs only) to run a full node, you're wrong again.

Av Joe is not a System supporter - BTC is scaming such poor guys to spent ther Money on tech shit and leave them with less Money for their live

Av Joe can just enjoy cheap and safe Bitcoin - it scales for many big industries to run miners. Here is the future.

PoW is thinking about happy future.

[hv_]

Av Joe is not a System supporter - BTC is scaming such poor guys to spent ther Money on tech shit and leave them with less Money for their live

Av Joe can just enjoy cheap and safe Bitcoin - it scales for many big industries to run miners. Here is the future.

PoW is thinking about happy future.

The only scam is CSW posing as Satoshi, and this "Satoshi vision BS".

BSV safe ? https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bsv.html#1y

We do not Need CSW to call it Bitcoin - it is such simple to see with some guts - same as to see that it is safe to use for any Av Joe on the planet - much more than Segshit & LieNing.

See - you never can stay on the Topic - troll away

[ðºÞæ]

Spam away
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/spam-away/

Bitcoin SV (BSV) now stands head and shoulders above the rest
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-sv-bsv-now-stands-head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest/

[hv_]

Av Joe is not a System supporter - BTC is scaming such poor guys to spent ther Money on tech shit and leave them with less Money for their live

Av Joe can just enjoy cheap and safe Bitcoin - it scales for many big industries to run miners. Here is the future.

PoW is thinking about happy future.

The only scam is CSW posing as Satoshi, and this "Satoshi vision BS".

BSV safe ? https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bsv.html#1y

We do not Need CSW to call it Bitcoin - it is such simple to see with some guts - same as to see that it is safe to use for any Av Joe on the planet - much more than Segshit & LieNing.

See - you never can stay on the Topic - troll away

Let me quote you how you don't relate BSV and CSW posing as Satoshi.

...

What jurisdiction ya mean?  Nah...

Edit.

Read and get the reason here

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.33.0.pdf

It is only about starting  fishing AFTER , based on
1) condolences from CSW
2) what Ira got from (core) social media

Not even getting down to correct jurisdiction, Australia

So expect only proof that CSW is Satoshi

And put ur money where u see truth is behind against what u might wish to believe

U might see such actions / "protections" from some ppl who KNOW it before you...

 

...............

hahaha! ...

Who coined the word "cryptocurrency" ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155348.0

- https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1095309111263223808



Oops.

Any decent proof you can provide WHO really altered ? Was that you ?

Who btw wants to discred ppl without proof ?  You ?


 

Wrong. CSW posted the edited version of this on his own twitter feed: Dr Craig S Wright (@ProfFaustus) - then seemingly subsequently deleted his entire twitter feed presumable to cover up evidence.

This is not the only example of this.

You seemingly have a real problem with trying to twist hard facts and the truth.

Did he really MADE the Change himself or was it to show it WAS changed ?

Was he closing his Twitter or was it closed by Twitter ?

Still - you wanna be blind or wanna create bias

.....

Some will never like him I fear

https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-libel-suits-crypto-critics/

Guess Satoshi s been forced into reaction mode?

......

It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for a bench warrant to be issued. That would authorize the police to arrest him, but I'm guessing there's no chance of extradition.

Basically, Wright would need to avoid stepping foot in the United States.

As Satoshi, and a proven internet forensics expert, wouldn't he not be of some help for cleaning up the Bitcoin space from many (old) criminals?

.........................

I don't understand, Craig Wright would have lied

https://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-uses-falsified-docs-to-prove-innocence-in-kleiman-case

from https://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-uses-falsified-docs-to-prove-innocence-in-kleiman-case

By Helen Partz
Craig Wright Uses Falsified Docs to Prove Innocence in Kleiman Case: Report
19465
Total views
283
Total shares
Listen to article
1:41
Craig Wright Uses Falsified Docs to Prove Innocence in Kleiman Case: ReportNEWS
Self-proclaimed Bitcoin (BTC) creator Craig Wright has allegedly provided fabricated court documents to prove a trust deed with his plaintiffs, as seen from documents revealed by trial lawyer Stephen Palley on Twitter on July 3.

https://twitter.com/stephendpalley/status/1146527019326496769?fbclid=IwAR1dUaIH43GVrHwLgj7CkM0h42O4P-jixgdqnzh37NbeGfY2KjNciY7-ajM

According to Palley, the self-styled Satoshi Nakamoto has failed to prove his case by presenting court documents that Palley alleges to be fake, as they contain multiple chronological discrepancies.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Among the exhibits filed with the District Court for the Florida Southern District on July 3, there is a document submitted as proof of cooperation between Wright and the now-deceased David Kleiman, whose lawyers filed the case against Wright in February 2018. Kleiman’s lawyers accuse Wright of stealing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin — at press time valued at over $5 billion — after Kleiman’s death in April 2013.

While the presented deed of trust document is ostensibly dated Oct. 23, 2012, the metadata of the file indicates that the document was actually created after the death of Kleiman, as Palley found. The trust document apparently uses a 2015 copyright notice related to Calibri, the Microsoft Word font, indicating that the document could not be from earlier.

Alleged falsification of trust deed documents by Craig Wright

Alleged falsification of trust deed documents by Craig Wright. Source: Stephen Palley

Following the apparent accusation of Wright for forging the court documents, Palley wrote:

“I mean it makes sense that the inventor of bitcoin can time travel.  Your honor.”

In late June, Wright declared that he cannot comply with a court order to provide a list of all his early bitcoin addresses, claiming that he gave a key piece of information regarding the funds and wallets to Kleiman before his death.

Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this guy a liar or not? 

How poor is that ? 

Who provided those docs ? 
When fabricated ?
What u want to tell / beleive here ?

nothing

And

At 1TB week is 52 TB year

I thought Craigy's policy all along was that they don't want little people involved in the running of BSV.

Anything that makes it more centralised is a welcome development in their eyes. Presumably the end game is one datacentre with him masturbating furiously every time those 'gigamegs' get bigger.

No, the good thing is that many trustworthy institutions will run enough infrastructure for anyone in the world, and hobby guys can still run btc raspi shit.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. 

Thx for reading and reposting all my good posts here again

What you need is understanding all that in proper context with what the globe needs and original Bitcoin can provide with no block size cap.

Dunno what u little ano think other anos want, try to fck up btc more for that , it is a free world.

I wish u best with that experiment

But seems u still need to hang around here and learn, that's even better

[jbreher]

Its not based on anything other than a preference of belief, yours is that BSV is closer to being the Bitcoin that Satoshi intended. There's no way to prove that of course

May be no way of knowing what Satoshi intended. However, we do know what Satoshi initially bequeathed us (haha - bequeathed - almost like religion again:) ). And we know that BSV is much closer to that than is BTC. And getting closer with each release.

Just like religion, bitcoin is allowed to evolve.

Well, I'm no theologian. But that sounds looney. I thought a central tenet of theism -- each such -- posits an absolute unyielding truth. This notion is incompatible with the notion of an evolving religion.

Though that may only serve to illustrate the stretch of your Bitcoin as religion analogy.

Of course, Bitcoin is allowed to evolve. (permissionless, anyone?) However, one is also free to question the wisdom of an evolving Bitcoin. I think it very unwise. At least in the absence of any proven defects. You seem to think others are smarter than Satoshi, and have understanding of the tradeoffs better than does s/he. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Nobody said it _has_ to stay a particular way, that is, unless you believe Satoshi was some omnipotent, perfect being and the white paper itself is some sort of divine text.

The white paper does not need to be divinely inspired in order for it to describe the most optimal solution for this space. Again, in the absence of proven defects...

[jbreher]

It is Bitcoin - but not ur BTC  (what is altered SegwitCoin)

Never will be: centralized,

False.

unsustainable,

While unknowable a priori, that is quite unlikely.

average Joe can't run a full node

False.

so it's very unBitcoin.

Well, you're batting zero for three in your stated criteria. So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! It's the most Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At least from the standpoint of the design of the protocol itself. The only legitimate claim BTC/Segwit/Core has on the title is popularity. Which can be fleeting.

Few mining pools, few nodes and less and less. It's centralizing, that's a fact.

Average Joe won't spend 1600usd (HDDs only) to run a full node

As long as there are no structural barriers for new entrants to the space of non-mining, fully-validating clients (i.e., what you so blithely mis-refer to as 'full nodes'), the network is exactly as decentralized as it need be. It's not as if having lots of non-mining, fully-validating clients actually provides any benefit to the network at large.

As far as mining:
# of pools required to make over 50% on BTC today: 3 - BTC.com 28.47%, F2Pool 13.19%, Poolin 11.81%
# of pools required to make over 50% on BSV today: 5 - Coingeek 27.08%, Mempool 11.81%, SVPool 6.25%, Dpool 4.17%, BMG Pool 3.47%
So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! Again.

[jbreher]

It is Bitcoin - but not ur BTC  (what is altered SegwitCoin)

Never will be: centralized,

False.

unsustainable,

While unknowable a priori, that is quite unlikely.

average Joe can't run a full node

False.

so it's very unBitcoin.

Well, you're batting zero for three in your stated criteria. So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! It's the most Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At least from the standpoint of the design of the protocol itself. The only legitimate claim BTC/Segwit/Core has on the title is popularity. Which can be fleeting.

Few mining pools, few nodes and less and less. It's centralizing, that's a fact.

Average Joe won't spend 1600usd (HDDs only) to run a full node

As long as there are no structural barriers for new entrants to the space of non-mining, fully-validating clients (i.e., what you so blithely mis-refer to as 'full nodes'), the network is exactly as decentralized as it need be. It's not as if having lots of non-mining, fully-validating clients actually provides any benefit to the network at large.

As far as mining:
# of pools required to make over 50% on BTC today: 3 - BTC.com 28.47%, F2Pool 13.19%, Poolin 11.81%
# of pools required to make over 50% on BSV today: 5 - Coingeek 27.08%, Mempool 11.81%, SVPool 6.25%, Dpool 4.17%, BMG Pool 3.47%
So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! Again.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-sv/charts/hashrate-distribution
CoinGeek - 29%
svpool.com - 13%
Mempool.com - 11%
3 pools, 53%

So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! Again.

Today, tut, Today. Do try to keep up.



So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! Again.

More telling, however, is your lack of response to the following:
# of pools required to make over 50% on BTC today: 3 - BTC.com 28.47%, F2Pool 13.19%, Poolin 11.81%

Kinda belies the absurdity of your 'bubut muh BSV mining centralization as compared to BTC', amirite?