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

[hv_]

Fork of BCH.

nice - included the licence for un-fuckening all that crap

put that all into correct context - you are a hero (on page 100 !!  - oh wait)

https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-history-part-2-we-were-all-big-blockers-except-greg/

 

[jbreher]

And you again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance to the fact that a protocol is not the same thing as a software implementation. You seem to parrot this inanity at every opportunity, heaping yet another pile of rightful derision upon your ignorant ass. One might expect that a person with a modicum of intelligence, having this gaping hole in their knowledge pointed out to them repeatedly, would pause to actually learn something about the matter. But no. Not you. No, not you.

Congrats on taking 80 words to say nothing at all. You can't generate an actual counter-argument so you harp on some inane semantics that only matter to you. You don't get to decide what the end all, be all code behind Satohi's envisioning of the Bitcoin Protocol entails.

You keep trying to claim that a protocol is the same thing as a software implementation. You just look stupider and stupider every time you do so.

FWIW, BTC has indeed endured a hard fork - though it was back in the time before BTC, BCH, and then BSV each went their own respective directions. So it is irrelevant as a differentiator. But you still want to cling to 'soft forks only', don't you? Demonstrating yet another vector of your ignorance.

This is a straight up lie. But I expect nothing less from those who swallow the talking points of a pathologically lying cult leader without the slightest bit of reservation.

You seem to need a refresher. Go look at v 0.8.

Relevance? Zero.

[hv_]

Turns out the scammers are hiding and smearing Satoshi.

Just wonder why their quality was only PoSM and fake news trollings / forgeritis ...

Here the news are public and over courts. Read the original docs...

https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-files-strong-motion-for-summary-judgement-against-ira-kleiman/

[hv_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0A6c5CBIcY

Yes - Shadders is right, BitCoin must give / decentralize opportunities for back everybody on  the planet AGAIN (not buy just speculation / SoV / Ponzi Hodl blabla ..) but of could create reasonable business

ON TOP

ON CHAIN

of a

LOCKED DOWN and STABLE PROTOCOL

that helps for anybody to live better, not just the few we encourage by letting still do their hidden agendas (and alter protocol, PoSM,..)


Get rid of the criminals and their agenda to hide, by making things more transparent - BitCoin helps here a lot  IMHO

[jbreher]

You don't even have anything ... except for the parts that you free ported from open source bitcoin

Well, that''s pretty much true. Bitcoin _worked_ before the people that originally thought it would never work got their hands on it and fuckitated it. SV is very near a faithful de-fuckitated version of the original, complete, protocol.

And hey - look at that - it works.

'The system will collapse if blocks be made larger than kinda-1MB-kinda-4MB' they said.

'Nobody will mine if the market is free to set prices' they said.

Oops - guess 'they' were wrong.

[jbreher]

You don't even have anything ... except for the parts that you free ported from open source bitcoin

Well, that''s pretty much true. Bitcoin _worked_ before the people that originally thought it would never work got their hands on it and fuckitated it. SV is very near a faithful de-fuckitated version of the original, complete, protocol.

At least you admit, that largely Bcash SV is an attempt to go back to the original code and merely to just increase the blocksize limit.

Close. Not quite. An attempt to mostly restore the original _protocol_. Which, by the way, had NO block size limit.

'The system will collapse if blocks be made larger than kinda-1MB-kinda-4MB' they said.

No one said that... you diptwat.

Bull-fucking-shit. It's one thing to have a differing opinion on relative merits. It is yet another altogether to fabricate revisionist history.

[hv_]

Centralized Blockchain / DB : Only a closed set of (contracted / predefined / stake defined)  entities have access control + have governance over the rule set

Not-centralized: everybody can gain access -  e.g. by working to solve a puzzle & enough energy & luck to finally solve it + no other solved that quicker    +  the rules are set in stone, no other can change rules cause contract was fixxed at start




> BSV is best ever not-centralized thing on the planet


(wall of text trolls try to bury and hide that very fact)

[hv_]

Centralized Blockchain / DB : Only a closed set of (contracted / predefined / stake defined)  entities have access control + have governance over the rule set

Not-centralized: everybody can gain access -  e.g. by working to solve a puzzle & enough energy & luck to finally solve it + no other solved that quicker    +  the rules are set in stone, no other can change rules cause contract was fixxed at start




> BSV is best ever not-centralized thing on the planet


(wall of text trolls try to bury and hide that very fact)

Thanks hv_.  I am glad that you have been able to clarify all these matters more tersely. 

Your quips are quite helpful in really highlighting the importance of discussions within this thread.

When I read your summaries, I feel strongly enlightened in this kind of way:

all thanks goes to Satoshi

we just here to learn what work he delivered


best to learn: let it run alone


News covering

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/soaring-btc-fees-are-hurting-the-community-bitcoin-sv-fees-are-less-than-a-fraction-of-1-301058608.html

High fees? - not on BSV

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[jbreher]

I am really glad that you goofballs did not get your way because you would have broken bitcoin through your attempts to make bitcoin easier to change..

And again with your complete misunderstanding of the situation. There is nothing that 'the bigblockers' did that would have made Bitcoin 'easier to change'.

OTOH, making Bitcoin easier to change is precisely the reason stated by the core devs for the versionbits portion of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

[hv_]

I am really glad that you goofballs did not get your way because you would have broken bitcoin through your attempts to make bitcoin easier to change..

And again with your complete misunderstanding of the situation. There is nothing that 'the bigblockers' did that would have made Bitcoin 'easier to change'.

Likely I understand as well as you, and probably better, since you are still delusional in your ongoing nonsensical BIG blocker evangelism efforts.

The essence of the matter is that the BIG blockers attempted to change bitcoin's governance, but they failed, and likely bitcoin is stronger in terms of identifying that attack vector that you continue to deny, but at the time, you on several occasions, you admitted that it was happening st the time that it was happening..

OTOH, making Bitcoin easier to change is precisely the reason stated by the core devs for the versionbits portion of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Nice little addition of gobble-dee-gook, and diversionary efforts.

maybe slowly you getting some point here (I help you to finish that one)

BSV has removed governance (for 'features' / consensus changes at protocol level) in terms of stay locked down the fucntional original design, let application devs securely implement the protocol into their feature applications - in order to be maximaum compliant (cause compliance is a thing anybody concerns for global adoption) - but also most to lock out any idiots trying to inject their agenda driven PROTOCOL CHANGES / 'FEATURES'

I see, the latter worked very nice  

The global adoption is already starting over, caused by economical reasons (stability and compliance leads to lower costs for apps):
 
https://europeangaming.eu/portal/press-releases/2020/05/12/70460/kronoverse-leaves-enjin-to-use-bitcoin-sv-solution-for-storing-in-game-items/

[Amph]

i missed this, is this a swap coin like bitcoin cash, 1:1 with bitcoin you hold before the release or something?

[hv_]

https://twitter.com/cyberat2600/status/1262527130040139777





BSVtards are absolute idiots.


Their whole shitcoin is based on a litany of lies

 

its based 100% on Satoshi and his work

and

honest mining.


... now you ve lied

[hv_]

https://twitter.com/cyberat2600/status/1262527130040139777





BSVtards are absolute idiots.


Their whole shitcoin is based on a litany of lies

 

its based 100% on Satoshi and his work

and

honest mining.


... now you ve lied

Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin ...

Going well in court I see NOT ...

more ...

"For who's interested, Jimmy Nguyen's deposition transcript is available on the court docket.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.285454/gov.uscourts.wawd.285454.32.1.pdf "
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1262512414454669319

...

Highlights thread (of 208 page .pdf) ...

...

"Things start going off the rails on page 60"
- https://twitter.com/cyberat2600/status/1262522618617434115
- https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1262522618617434115.html

oh , how I missed that troll - double postings  

this is just only for once

https://mobile.twitter.com/Ckatoshi/status/1262660706844864513


The 101 tells you: BSV is  BitCoin

Who cares about ppl?

[chmod755]

the Idea of Craig wright was good and he gave all the opportunities to makes this coin a legit thing, but no, he could make like Roger Ver, BCH is a great coin sometimes and the project is not fully copied.

[jbreher]

You keep trying to claim that a protocol is the same thing as a software implementation. You just look stupider and stupider every time you do so.

I never claimed that. You claimed that I claimed it.  

Yeah? Then WTF is this?:

However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.

This is simply a tired talking point with no technical basis. Looking at the current BSV GitHub repository:

gmaxwell - 144 commits
deadalnix (Sechet) - 766 commits
sepa (Wuille) - 835 commits

Your coin was largely built by Blockstream and Bitcoin Cash devs, and it remains that way.

You are quite clearly attempting to refute my point about relative fidelity to satoshi's protocol with some irrelevant claim about attributed lines of code - in other words, trying to use some aspect of a software implementation in a disucssion about protocol.

FWIW, BTC has indeed endured a hard fork - though it was back in the time before BTC, BCH, and then BSV each went their own respective directions. So it is irrelevant as a differentiator. But you still want to cling to 'soft forks only', don't you? Demonstrating yet another vector of your ignorance.

This is a straight up lie. But I expect nothing less from those who swallow the talking points of a pathologically lying cult leader without the slightest bit of reservation.

You seem to need a refresher. Go look at v 0.8.

0.8.0 - This was an unplanned hardfork caused by the migration from Berkeley DB to LevelDB, which accidentally removed an unknown 10,000-BDB database lock limit. This caused a chainsplit on 11 March 2013, although the software which caused the error was released 20 days earlier on 20 February 2013. The change was reverted as the Bitcoin economy and miners switched back to 0.7.2 rules.

https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/

Contrary to what you are insinuating, Bitcoin did not continue with this version. It did not "endure the hard fork" as the forked chain died quickly. Now please stop lying.

If your definition of what constitutes a hard fork is self-referential, it is utterly without purpose.

The code -- and subsequently the chain -- were indeed forked. The fact that a significant amount of economic power conspired to orphan a previously-valid chain does not invalidate this inconvenient fact.

Shall we next discuss the fork needed to deal with the creation of billions of BTC?

[freecircl]

I've just "released" an Bitcoin SV dependencies immersive diagram, feel free to check it here: https://twitter.com/freecircle4/status/1262885781334564864

[hv_]

I've just "released" an Bitcoin SV dependencies immersive diagram, feel free to check it here: https://twitter.com/freecircle4/status/1262885781334564864

Nice pictures

I d start with Bitcoin Rules / Protocol Design / White Paper - from that you start impl any code (or if you code first, you need to use nice docu tools to generate specifications backwards - guess that is what happens in the rush of getting things done and running)

[hv_]

You keep trying to claim that a protocol is the same thing as a software implementation. You just look stupider and stupider every time you do so.

I never claimed that. You claimed that I claimed it.  

Yeah? Then WTF is this?:

However, it is the only such that has forked itself back into near compliance with the original definition (i.e. the definitive definition) of the Bitcoin protocol.

This is simply a tired talking point with no technical basis. Looking at the current BSV GitHub repository:

gmaxwell - 144 commits
deadalnix (Sechet) - 766 commits
sepa (Wuille) - 835 commits

Your coin was largely built by Blockstream and Bitcoin Cash devs, and it remains that way.

You are quite clearly attempting to refute my point about relative fidelity to satoshi's protocol with some irrelevant claim about attributed lines of code - in other words, trying to use some aspect of a software implementation in a disucssion about protocol.

Huh, I didn't think you could fork protocols. I admit I didn't know that previously.

Regardless, BSV's "forking of the protocol back into near compliance with the original definition" is your opinion, and nothing more. You're playing a meaningless game of "gotcha" in order to avoid confronting the reality that, in addition to being on an entirely different chain twice removed from the original, your coin's implementation of the Bitcoin PROTOCOL contains stuff that renders it incompatible with the original implementation of the PROTOCOL.

Shall we next discuss the fork needed to deal with the creation of billions of BTC?

OK, let's discuss it. The problem was fixed via soft fork. Anything else you want to bring up from 10 years ago?

You cannot just inject fancy stuff like Segshit or rbf into smtp / VoIP / FTP ... whatever and hope everyone buys that as being compliant after such , cause you kept the initial logo (ticker) that keeps some noisy idiots, anonymous,  criminals and a herd of nuti-noobs with fancy hats 'using' that crap

Better ask a layer before coming to financial world

This is more of interest right now


https://mobile.twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1263167631076364288

[hv_]

  Oooops Did Satoshi just move Craig Wright's Bitcoins cb1440c787d8a46977886405a34da89939e1b04907f567bf182ef27ce53a8d71
2020-05-20 12:54

Lol, nice hack

[jbreher]

  Oooops Did Satoshi just move Craig Wright's Bitcoins cb1440c787d8a46977886405a34da89939e1b04907f567bf182ef27ce53a8d71
2020-05-20 12:54

Welcome back ...

To 'jberher' - not sure what you are up to here. But you seem to have chosen your username deliberately to be confused with me. I believe this against this forum's terms of use. If you post further, without first providing a tenable explanation for this choice of username, I shall be forced ask the mods to deal appropriately.